Wisconsin Tobacco Harm Reduction Blog

Smoking bans don't harm business?

2012-02-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

This is a telling news report.

The ANTZ claim that smoking bans are good for businesses and do not negatively impact the economy. You could just read this article and think that the owner allowing smoking in his bar is exaggerating the 20% loss in business after banning smoking. However, if business doesn't actually drop after smoking bans, why is the owner of the bar down the road - one that does enforce the ban - feel it is "unfair" that the law is not evenly enforced? According to the ANTZ, his business should be booming compared to the smoke-filled tavern down the road. Except a picture is worth a 1,000 words:

Busy smoking bar

Nearly empty non-smoking bar down the road

Also telling is the comment made by the man at the smoking bar when asked if he's planning on quitting any time soon.

"When they bury me," he replied.

This is what we call an 'inveterate smoker" and smokers like him are completely forgotten and ignored by the ANTZ when they suggest tobacco and smoking policies to legislators. Rather than caring about this man, he is left behind as a lost cause or even worse, villainized for his smoking. This man, who has no intention of quitting tobacco, is fed the lies and half-truths about smokeless alternatives and electronic cigarettes. He is encouraged to keep smoking because the government tells him that smokeless alternatives are really no better for him. Even if he did decide to switch to a reduced-harm option to save money, local, state and federal governments all across the country are increasing taxes on these products, making them as or more expensive than cigarettes and removing that incentive.

If he decided to switch to an e-cigarette, which are not currently banned for public use in Wisconsin (and in most of the country), the ANTZ groups such as the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids are lobbying hard to ensure that e-cigarette use is also banned in public, removing yet another incentive to switch. These laws are meant to protect imaginary "possible future smokers" who do not even exist, yet what they really accomplish is keeping real, living smokers in harm's way by putting up every road block possible to him switching to a loss-risk, smokeless alternative.

Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469 has been introduced by Senator Glen Grothman and is intended to ensure that e-cigarettes are not included in indoor smoking bans. If passed, this will be the first legislation it's kind passed in the entire world - legislation to protect the use of a harm reduction product in public. This legislation could set a precedence and set an example for state and local governments all over the country.

There are an estimated 2.5 million electronic cigarette users in this country. These are not the hypothetical youth and non-smokers over which the ANTZ wring their hands, but living, breathing human beings; former smokers who have made the conscious choice to end their exposure to smoke. These are folks who can head back out to that corner bar and enjoy an evening without having to step outside for a smoke and business could be booming again for that owner with the empty bar. The ANTZ want to put a stop to even that.

Please write your congressmen and ask them to support Wisconsin Assembly Bill 469. You can easily find them here: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx

(For the record, I do not support public smoking bans in private businesses or open, outdoor areas. However, the ANTZ have successfully sold these bans to the public based on their "evidence." When it comes to e-cigarette use bans, on the other hand, they may as well cite fairy dust and magic potions as "evidence," because they have absolutely nothing else that even suggests harm to users or bystanders!)

Of bans and beaches

2012-02-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

I woke up this morning thinking about a few places now trying to ban e-cigarette use (along with smoking) outdoors - including at parks and beaches. A recent television episode of a show my kids watch showed a girl trying to read at the beach and being bothered by grill smoke - which got me thinking....

Would the FDA or CDC argue that charcoal or wood smoke is actually safer to inhale than the smoke from tobacco leaves? If not, then would that not be an argument to also ban charcoal grilling from parks and beaches, in order to protect innocent bystanders from THAT smoke, as well? And since there is "NO safe level" of smoke exposure, regardless of ventilation systems installed, would that not support banning the use of wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills in food service and restaurants, in order to protect employees and patrons? If you can smell the grill in the dining room, that means you are being exposed to smoke, right? How can they argue one smoke is safer than another smoke? (Yet, apparently they do.)

Men "smoking" at the park.
Think of the children!

And then there's campfires, fireplaces and fire pits to consider. Shouldn't those be banned, as well?

I think at these meetings where they are trying to ban e-cigs/smoking outside (where grilling is allowed) we should insist that they add grills to the ordinance or not pass it at all!! And if they are trying to ban e-cig use in bars & restaurants, insist they also ban wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills, because my safety is at risk! (Let's see them answer THAT one.)

I know that this has long been an argument made by smoker's rights groups, but I have yet to hear it or about read this argument at any public testimonies regarding outdoor bans and I don't think anyone has insisted or argued that we SHOULD ban grills and fire pits. Maybe the time has come to force them to put their money where their mouth is or shut up.

Think about it - they want to ban smoking and smokeless e-cigarettes at the stadium in Indianapolis, but the hundreds of tailgating grills that will be at the Super Bowl this weekend, pumping out enough smoke to equal dozens of smokers for hours before the game, isn't a concern? Still think these bans are supported by "science?" Time to call them on their bluff?

Wisconsin bill to exclude e-cigs from smoking bans controversal?

2012-01-13T12:38:00.000-08:00

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."
- Rita Mae Brown

State Senator Glen Grothman (R-West Bend) has introduced Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469, an "Act to renumber 101.123 (1) (h); and to create 101.123 (1) (h) 2m. of the statutes; relating to: exempting electronic smoking devices from the types of smoking devices that may not be used in certain locations."

In my mind, this is an e-cigarette advocate's dream - to have a legislator on our side for once. To my surprise and astonishment, this bill is instead going over like a lead balloon for everyone except Wisconsin vapers.

I seriously feel that it's time we stopped always being on the defense and start making offensive maneuvers such as this, yet I have heard these objections to this bill from OUR side: 1) It's opening a can of worms; 2) It's creating a problem where there is none; 3) It's a huge waste of time and energy and a distraction from "important legislative battles;" and 4) This legislation doesn't preempt the local governments from including e-cigarettes in their bans, so it's basically worthless.

OK, 1) We aren't opening the proverbial "can of worms," the ANTZ are already doing it for us. Why let them get their misinformation to the legislators FIRST? Isn't it naive to think that if we don't do it, they won't either? Isn't that essentially hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening?

2) There may not be a "problem" today (as e-cigarettes are not referenced/included in the current law), but don't think that the ANTZ aren't working behind the scenes EVERYWHERE to introduce legislation or definition changes to include e-cigarettes in indoor bans. It's foolish to think that we are somehow "safe" if we aren't the ones to open up the dialog. We have evidence popping up like weeds all over the country showing that the ANTZ are actively approaching state and local legislators to get e-cigarettes included in smoking bans. It's stupid to think they aren't working anywhere and everywhere and we aren't going to be "creating" any problems that the ANTZ won't be right behind us to do themselves.

Why do we have to wait and then have to undo the damage the ANTZ already have caused once we find out about the bill? These bills don't come out of a vacuum - the ANTZ have to spread their misinformation and lies to a lot of legislators before they get one to introduce a bill. By the time we are fighting the bill, most of the damage has been done and we have far less time to get the truth out. The reality is that those who introduce a bill are seen as more knowledgeable about the issue and their argument will be given greater weight. (They basically have all of the time in the world to make their arguments, while we have the short period between introduction and the vote.)

3) Wouldn't having specific language in the law stating outright that e-cigarettes are NOT "smoking" help prevent or seriously slow down efforts to get them included?? We are involved in all of these legislative battles because we are constantly on the defense against legislation introduced to ban e-cigarettes and the misinformation and lies told legislators that we have to try to UNDO. Wouldn't it make more sense that these proposed changes adding e-cigs would be a lot more difficult to pass if A) there's already language specifying that e-cigarette use is NOT smoking and B) the legislators have already received TRUTHFUL information and testimony from constituents and been educated BEFORE the ANTZ get to them??

4) See #3 plus even if it doesn't preempt local governments from making their own laws, it sets an example for them at a state level and sets a precedence for other states. Additionally, chances are most local governments don't even have their own local smoking bans and just follow the state law.
I just don't see any valid or reasonable argument against supporting this bill and not to try to get similar (maybe better) bills introduced in states where the ANTZ haven't already got a proposed ban inclusion started.

I got a letter back from my district's state senator, Jim Holeprin and he implied that the ANTZ are already actively trying to get a bill started in Wisconsin (where there was supposedly "no controversy" and "no problem" and Senator Grothman was "creating the problem" by introducing this clarification) to include e-cigarettes in smoking bans in Wisconsin. He said in his letter to me:

Some groups are calling for new legislation to specify that these electronic devices should be categorized as "smoking" and included in the ban. A measure like this has not yet been introduced, and may not be anytime this session.

That tells us that just because we haven't seen legislation introduced yet doesn't mean they aren't actively working behind the scenes to do so! The senator just basically admitted as such. Do we really think that having the bill specifically exempting e-cigarettes is a waste of time and energy here? Wouldn't it be just as much or maybe even more time and energy fighting the legislation to get them INCLUDED once they get it introduced?? Why are we just sitting back and letting them do this and not fighting until the problem is all too real and nearly impossible to fix at that point?

His next paragraph states:

The legislation you want me to support would make present law "clearer" by emphasizing that "smokeless" electronic devices are exempted from the statewide smoking ban (even though they are already excluded.) The exclusion has not been challenged anywhere that I know of.

Ummm...didn't he just state in the previous paragraph that there are groups calling for just such legislation??

He stated in his letter:

I was pleased to support the state smoking ban which was enacted almost two years ago...I believe last session's statewide smoking was a solid piece of legislation that attracted good support in the legislature, and has been implemented statewide without much controversy at all. Therefore, I am hesitant to see any changes to the new law that this time, because opening up the smoking issue could result in outcomes that are unpredictable and unwelcome.

Then he says:

If electronic cigarette use starts to become more prevalent, and if its use in public places starts to be challenged, then I would certainly consider supporting a clarification of the law.

OK, so, what if in the meantime the ANTZ get someone to support legislation to INCLUDE e-cigarettes? He doesn't say he would not support that, especially since he clearly supported the smoking ban. And "clarification" could come to mean that they ARE included!

The fact of the matter is, that not having e-cigarette use included in existing smoking bans has NOT protected them one iota from the law being changed TO include them (usually in the definition of "smoking.") So, why are we still acting like it somehow benefits or protects us that most smoking ban language does not presently include e-cigarettes? It hasn't really helped stop most of the amendments to include e-cigs in bans from getting passed. The fact that most laws don't include references to e-cigarettes is proving to be just as much of a hindrance to us, because the lack of language is leaving the door open for them to ADD the language. How could having e-cigarettes formally addressed as being exempt NOT make it harder to add that language?

Can someone tell me what I am missing here?

Wisconsin bill to exclude e-cigs from smoking bans controversal?

2012-01-13T12:22:00.000-08:00

State Senator Glen Grothman (R-West Bend) has introduced Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469, an "Act to renumber 101.123 (1) (h); and to create 101.123 (1) (h) 2m. of the statutes; relating to: exempting electronic smoking devices from the types of smoking devices that may not be used in certain locations."

In my mind, this is an e-cigarette advocate's dream - to have a legislator on our side for once. To my surprise and astonishment, this bill is instead going over like a lead balloon for everyone except Wisconsin vapers.

I seriously feel that it's time we stopped always being on the defense and start making offensive maneuvers such as this, yet I have heard these objections to this bill from OUR side: 1) It's opening a can of worms; 2) It's creating a problem where there is none; 3) It's a huge waste of time and energy and a distraction from "important legislative battles;" and 4) This legislation doesn't preempt the local governments from including e-cigarettes in their bans, so it's basically worthless.

OK, 1) We aren't opening the proverbial "can of worms," the ANTZ are already doing it for us. Why let them get their misinformation to the legislators FIRST? Isn't it naive to think that if we don't do it, they won't either? Isn't that essentially hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening?

2) There may not be a "problem" today (as e-cigarettes are not referenced/included in the current law), but don't think that the ANTZ aren't working behind the scenes EVERYWHERE to introduce legislation or definition changes to include e-cigarettes in indoor bans. It's foolish to think that we are somehow "safe" if we aren't the ones to open up the dialog. We have evidence popping up like weeds all over the country showing that the ANTZ are actively approaching state and local legislators to get e-cigarettes included in smoking bans. It's stupid to think they aren't working anywhere and everywhere and we aren't going to be "creating" any problems that the ANTZ won't be right behind us to do themselves.

Why do we have to wait and then have to undo the damage the ANTZ already have caused once we find out about the bill? These bills don't come out of a vacuum - the ANTZ have to spread their misinformation and lies to a lot of legislators before they get one to introduce a bill. By the time we are fighting the bill, most of the damage has been done and we have far less time to get the truth out. The reality is that those who introduce a bill are seen as more knowledgeable about the issue and their argument will be given greater weight. (They basically have all of the time in the world to make their arguments, while we have the short period between introduction and the vote.)

3) Wouldn't having specific language in the law stating outright that e-cigarettes are NOT "smoking" help prevent or seriously slow down efforts to get them included?? We are involved in all of these legislative battles because we are constantly on the defense against legislation introduced to ban e-cigarettes and the misinformation and lies told legislators that we have to try to UNDO. Wouldn't it make more sense that these proposed changes adding e-cigs would be a lot more difficult to pass if A) there's already language specifying that e-cigarette use is NOT smoking and B) the legislators have already received TRUTHFUL information and testimony from constituents and been educated BEFORE the ANTZ get to them??

4) See #3 plus even if it doesn't preempt local governments from making their own laws, it sets an example for them at a state level and sets a precedence for other states. Additionally, chances are most local governments don't even have their own local smoking bans and just follow the state law.
I just don't see any valid or reasonable argument against supporting this bill and not to try to get similar (maybe better) bills introduced in states where the ANTZ haven't already got a proposed ban inclusion started.

I got a letter back from my district's state senator, Jim Holeprin and he implied that the ANTZ are already actively trying to get a bill started in Wisconsin (where there was supposedly "no controversy" and "no problem" and Senator Grothman was "creating the problem" by introducing this clarification) to include e-cigarettes in smoking bans in Wisconsin. He said in his letter to me:

Some groups are calling for new legislation to specify that these electronic devices should be categorized as "smoking" and included in the ban. A measure like this has not yet been introduced, and may not be anytime this session.

The legislation you want me to support would make present law "clearer" by emphasizing that "smokeless" electronic devices are exempted from the statewide smoking ban (even though they are already excluded.) The exclusion has not been challenged anywhere that I know of.

Ummm...didn't he just state in the previous paragraph that there are groups calling for just such legislation??

He stated in his letter:

I was pleased to support the state smoking ban which was enacted almost two years ago...I believe last session's statewide smoking was a solid piece of legislation that attracted good support in the legislature, and has been implemented statewide without much controversy at all. Therefore, I am hesitant to see any changes to the new law that this time, because opening up the smoking issue could result in outcomes that are unpredictable and unwelcome.

Then he says:

If electronic cigarette use starts to become more prevalent, and if its use in public places starts to be challenged, then I would certainly consider supporting a clarification of the law.

Boise gets it but Boston nips it

2011-12-02T15:08:00.000-08:00

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, in conjunction with Jim Longden, the owner of Vapoligy (a Boise e-cigarette store) and several Boise e-cigarette users, successfully campaigned to get truthful and accurate information about e-cigarettes to the Boise City Council members, which resulted in the exclusion of e-cigarettes from ordinances which ban "smoking in bars and private clubs, near bus stops or other transit areas, on outdoor commercial patios accessible to children or on public property, at the Grove Plaza, on 8th Street from Bannock to Main streets, within 20 feet of a City of Boise-owned building and in other public locations" and "within 20 feet of the Boise Greenbelt, except in designated areas within Ann Morrison and Julia Davis parks and the Warm Springs Golf Course."

Mr. Longden was one of several who attended the Boise City Council meeting on Novemeber 1st and his experience supports CASAA's belief that e-cigarette users who show up to these meetings can make a significant impact.

"After the meeting we were able to talk with Councilman Thomson and Adam Park, who is the Communications Director for the Mayor and City Council," said Longden. "They were both very responsive and seemed genuinely interested in seeing an eCigarette perform even to the point where Mr. Park asked me to blow vapor in his face. They both seemed truly amazed at the lack of smell and the vapor dissipating almost instantly."

"This a significant victory. With a population of over 200,000 people, Boise is now the largest city in America to remove e-cigarettes from what was purported to be 'smoking' ban," said CASAA Director Gregory Conley. Other locales that have recently considered, and then rejected, bans on e-cigarette use, include Delaware County, Indiana and Alexandria, Louisiana," said CASAA Director Greg Conley.

Meanwhile, the news isn't as positive for Boston's local vapers. CASAA issued a Call to Action alert September 21st that the Boston Public Health Commission had proposed the Clean Air Works Workplace Smoking and E-Cigarette Use Restrictions Regulation, a prohibition on the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace, which was passed by the Commission on Wednesday. Although many members headed the call, it simply wasn't enough.

"Seeking to close a loophole on unregulated products like electronic cigarettes that deliver nicotine, the Boston Public Health Commission’s Board of Health today approved a proposal to treat e-cigarettes like tobacco products, including requiring retail establishments to obtain a permit to sell them, prohibiting their use in the workplace, and restricting their sale to adults only," the BPHC website stated.

The Commission's statement is confusing, because the public use of many smokeless "tobacco products," such as snus, dissolvables and chew, is not prohibited. Therefore, the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the smoking ban is, in effect, treating e-cigarettes like tobacco cigarettes, not just as a tobacco product.

The prohibition on smoking in the workplace is argued by public health officials as necessary to protect bystanders from the "known hazards" of second-hand smoke. However, there has been no such evidence that vapor exhaled by e-cigarette users poses any risk to bystanders. In fact, researchers and even the FDA have failed to find dangerous levels of any toxins or carcinogens in e-cigarettes tested, so there is no science-based reason to suspect e-cigarettes pose a significant health risk to the user, let alone to bystanders. Absent any scientific evidence of health risks, CASAA suspects e-cigarettes are being treated like tobacco cigarettes by the BPHC based solely on how they may "look" to bystanders.

"E-cigarettes are currently in use by approximately 2.5 million adults to eliminate or significantly reduce their exposure to tobacco smoke and there have been no reports of significant adverse health effects since their introduction to the U.S. over 4 years ago," said Kristin Noll-Marsh, CASAA's vice president. "The ability to use e-cigarettes [where smoking is prohibited] is a powerful incentive to get smokers to consider switching to these reduced harm alternatives. By approving this ordinance, the Boston Health Department is sending the message to smokers that they may as well keep smoking. How is that remotely in the best interest of public health? At least Boise [City Council] got it right."

Chew/snus alternatives free from scrutiny given to e-cigarettes

2011-11-28T12:47:00.000-08:00

The FDA has gone after e-cigarettes because it decided that the claims that e-cigarettes were safer than smoking were unproven and that the products were actually unapproved drug delivery systems designed for smoking cessation. Arguments that e-cigarettes are actually safer alternatives to smoking (rather than a treatment) have fallen on deaf ears.

Ironically, another "alternative" to tobacco - tobacco and nicotine-free chew/snus products - have seemingly been free to make similar claims about their products without any clinical trials or FDA scrutiny. Compare the claims made on the web site for a product called "Nip the Grip":

Is NiP really safe? Yes. NiP the ENERGY DIP is made with natural sea sponge that is infused with Vitamin B-12, Caffeine, and natural flavorings which are all FDA approved ingredients.
NiP is a safe and healthy, natural alternative to smokeless tobacco. It has been specially developed for times of nicotine cravings and your need for increased mental and physical focus.
NiP is a unique, safe alternative to smokeless tobacco. NiP is designed to help people break away from the powerful grip of nicotine addiction.
Nip is safe, healthy and a great way to cope with the intense physical cravings of nicotine while achieving more ENERGY and enjoying the same oral gratification as a dip of tobacco.
A BETTER, HEALTHY BUZZ

And this is just one product's claims. I found several chew/snus alternatives including Absolut Snus (coffee based), Jake's Mint Chew (mint leaf-based in mint, cinnamon, licorice or cherry flavors), Chattahoochee Herbal Snuff (made with soy and glycerin in wintergreen, cherry, mint, whiskey, tobacco and "spitfire" flavors), and Root 100 (ginseng-based in candy and fruit flavors such as apple, cinnamon, peppermint and tangerine) all making similar claims on their web sites.

So, where is the FDA questioning the safety and efficacy of these products claiming to help you beat your nicotine addiction? Why is it legal for some of them to simply put the standard disclaimer "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease," (others don't even bother with the disclaimer) when that is clearly what they state the product is for on their web sites? Where is the demand for clinical trials and peer-reviewed research?

Where are the public health groups questioning the long-term effects of having these products in your mouth? Why are they not objecting to the fact that these products "look like" tobacco products and counter their denormalization campaign against tobacco? Why are the ANTZ not claiming that these fruit and candy flavors are encouraging kids to pretend to chew and that they may be a gateway to using "real" chew? How about the fact that it's sold right along side chewing tobacco in convenience stores?

Now, obviously I don't think any of those things should happen - anymore than they should for e-cigarettes. I don't want to see any alternative taken away from people who want it. It's the double standard that bothers me.

According to this CNN report on mint snuff, dentists endorse and even hand out the tobacco-free products:

(Note the deceptive and misleading statement made by the reporter at the end. She continues the myth that nicotine and addiction is the greatest health risk by stating, "If you think dipping snuff is better than smoking, you're wrong. Chewing tobacco is highly addictive and exposes the body to levels of nicotine equal to those of cigarettes.")

And there it is: the nicotine. These other products are virtually identical in purpose to e-cigarettes, but they do not contain the nicotine. Which begs another question - then why the objection to nicotine-free e-cigarettes? They just "look like" smoking as these products "look like" chewing tobacco. And what about the addictive qualities of the caffeine in some of these chew replacements?

That is what it really comes down to - the vilification of nicotine and the belief that any "addiction" - no matter how low health risks - is the true evil. It's truly not about health - it's about social acceptance.

Fat people - welcome to our world

2011-11-16T11:14:00.000-08:00

In a recent Time Magazine online article, "Let’s Stop Being Passive About Fighting Obesity: It's time to embrace the same tactics that worked against smoking," public health writer Shannon Brownlee drew comparisons between smoking and obesity, calling for public health (and the public) to start treating fat people like smokers. I responded in the comments, but felt it was worth posting here, as well:

The author says, "The war on smoking worked because it made smoking shameful and the public health measures needed to fight it permissible."

In fact, the war on smoking was most successful from 1950 (when the link to lung cancer was found) through the 1980's - when public health focused on education and information, not the "shaming" of smokers. The smoking rate dropped dramatically from 44% to 26% (from 1950 to 1990.) The greatest advances in the mid to late 1980's - nicotine gum approved by the FDA, first city bans smoking in restaurants in 1987, nicotine compared to heroin (without any actual studies to support it), had very little impact in the following decade. The research on second-hand smoke came out in the 1990's, which was gleefully used to change a war against the negative health effects of smoking (to HELP smokers improve their health) into a war AGAINST smokers. The smoking rate at that time was 25%. Since the war on smoking turned from education and encouragement to a war on smokers and making smoking "shameful," the smoking rate has decreased only 5% in those 20 years (1990 to present) and has even ticked back up from 19% to 20% in the past couple of years.

The war on smoking worked for 40 years because it focused on education, developing tools for smokers to quit (finding them safer alternatives) and helping get smokers access to those tools. It relied on sound science and a true dedication to improving public health by empowering people - not controlling human behavior.

Since the late 1980's, public health has turned from trying to help smokers to battling "Big Evil Tobacco" - regardless of the health effects. The discovery that nicotine is addictive turned nicotine and addiction into the evil of smoking, rather than the health effects of inhaling toxic smoke. The science shows that not all tobacco use is equally hazardous - modern smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes have been shown to be 99% safer than smoking, but since the anti-tobacco groups want everyone to quit, they feel justified in letting smokers think they may as well smoke, so they don't just switch to safer options. The insistence on absolute abstinence from all nicotine use, even if it has extremely low health risks, angering smokers and tobacco users by treating them as less than human, applying punitive charges, taxes and policies to smokers - all while isolating them and ostracizing them - has created a backlash.

Additionally, using junk science to justify these actions (claiming taxes, graphic labels, bans and nicotine products work, when real scientific research proves they don't or claiming smokeless products like snus, dissolvable tobacco or e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as smoking when they are 99% less of a health risk) has created distrust and animosity of public health groups. Not to mention revelations that tobacco taxes - having been raised over 2,000% in some places since 1990, because proponents claimed for every 10% taxes were raised overall smoking rates would fall 4% (yet the smoking rate has only fallen 5% overall in the same time period) - are being relied upon to balance state budgets and pay tobacco control executive salaries, which seems to be a huge conflict of interest in actually wanting to END smoking.

Is this really the model you want to apply to fighting obesity?

The E-cigarette bans

2011-10-10T14:17:00.000-07:00

If YOU don't speak up for vapers, who will?? First they'll stick us back outside, then they'll charge us high taxes, limit our flavors, devices and strengths, stop online sales....you may as well still be smoking.

If you don't think these bans will affect you - THINK AGAIN! Don't think someone else will step up for you - you cannot afford to not be involved. Participate and/or donate, but join CASAA today!

Medsafe in New Zealand apparently banned cigarettes

2011-09-12T09:07:00.000-07:00

According to a recent news story by 3 News in New Zealand, "Medsafe has ruled that nicotine for inhalation is a medicine and insists that more research needs to be done before they can be sold in New Zealand." Based on this criteria, cigarettes - which deliver nicotine (along with 4,000+ other chemicals) for inhalation - are a medicine and are banned for sale.

Curiously, this is not actually the case. While cigarettes, which deliver nicotine for inhalation and are clearly hazardous to public health, remain legal to sell, e-cigarettes containing just nicotine and no toxic levels of any chemicals are banned for sale there.

"It's a start but there's a way to go before, really, there's going to be enough information for us to know about how safe these products are and how effective they are," said Dr. Stewart Jessamine about e-cigarettes.

Dr. Stewart seems to have forgotten that smoking "is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand, accounting for around 4300 to 4600 deaths per year." These 4600 smokers obviously could not or would not quit using Medsafe-approved "nicotine medicine" products and will continue to smoke, so why is Medsafe not fast-tracking the research and approval of a product which contains just 3 low-risk main ingredients: nicotine, propylene glycol and food flavoring? A product which has been on the market - world-wide - for several years without any reported serious adverse affects or deaths? How "safe and effective" do they need to be proven to try to prevent those 4300 to 4600 annual smoking-related deaths? How long is "a way to go" to get the information they need? One year? Two years? Or rather just 4600 more deaths? Just 9200 more deaths?

The good news from the article is the study being done by Dr. Chris Bullen at Auckland University, which will hopefully contribute to the reversal of not only Medsafe's e-cigarette policy, but other irresponsible e-cigarette sale bans currently in place around the world.

“We are going to recruit 650 people in New Zealand for this trial, so we think at the end of this study, the evidence will suggest one way or the other, do they help people quit smoking,” said Bullen.

The news piece also included little-publicized information about New Zealand anti-smoking campaigner Dr. Murray Laugesen, who has completed his own tests on e-cigarettes and is convinced that they cause less harm than traditional cigarettes.

"All around the emmissions score for e-cigarettes is about less than 1% of what it is for...an ordinary cigarette," Laugesen said.

Hundreds of thousands of e-cigarette users are reporting success switching from using hazardous traditional cigarettes to e-cigarettes without serious adverse events. Even if they only worked for half of New Zealand's smokers or had only 50% of the health risks of smoking, that could mean 2300 prevented smoking-related deaths a year or more. E-cigarettes can't possibly be any less effective than Chantix (Champix,) with a failure rate of 86% after 12 months nor more dangerous, with hundreds of Chantix-related suicides, murders and heart attacks reported; in the nearly identical time period e-cigarettes have also been on the market with no reports of serious adverse events. In spite of the increasingly obvious unknowns of Chantix, Medsafe continues to endorse its use, while banning another product which has shown no evidence of safety issues.

Luckily, in the U.S., the FDA was stopped short (by court order) of being able to follow in Medsafe's footsteps and treat e-cigarettes as a nicotine medicine, rather than what they really are - a much, much safer alternative to smoking for people who cannot or will not quit using "nicotine as medicine." As a result (and in spite of numerous ANTZ and FDA scare tactics) hundreds of thousands of U.S. smokers have access to a much safer product and are now smoke-free. CASAA is working to keep it that way.

Safe sex vs. Safe tobacco

2011-08-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

In the 1980's, public health groups began campaigning for "safe" sex. These campaigns promoted the use of condoms to reduce exposure to HIV and AIDS and continue to be used today to promote reduced exposure to other dangerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases (STD).

Rarely are the public health benefits of reducing health risks via "safe" sex questioned, even though "safe" sex is a misnomer. A 2001 NIH panel of experts examined dozens of studies and found that proper and consistent condom use reduced the incidence of STDs by 18% to 92%, depending upon the disease in question. At best case, that still leaves an 8% health risk for "safe" sex practices. For the human papilloma virus (HPV) - which has been linked to cervical cancer, the fifth most deadly cancer in the world for women - the harm reduction is even less.

In reality, condoms contribute to "safer" sex, but do not cause sex to be 100% safe. This does not stop public health groups from promoting "safe" sex to the public and the majority of us agree that it's better to be safer, even if it's not 100% safe. Millions are still spent promoting safe sex practices, even though STDs rarely result in death. In fact, it's reported that 80% of those infected with STDs are asymptomatic and not even aware that they are infected. The CDC reports that around 18,000 people with AIDS and approximately 4,000 women with cervical cancer die annually.

On the other hand, the CDC and other health groups report that "tobacco use" (or more specifically, smoking) causes 440,000 deaths annually in the U.S. (including the highly debated second hand smoke deaths.) Compared to smoking deaths, mouth cancer, the main health warning for smokeless tobacco use, contributes to only 8,000 deaths annually. However, according to the National Cancer Institute, researchers have been unable to determine how many of those deaths are actually caused by smokeless tobacco use. Based on one 1981 study of female chew users in the southern U.S., the NCI reports that "users of smokeless tobacco are at four times the risk of developing oral cancer than non-users." More recent research shows that smoking actually causes twice the risk of oral cancers (compared to smokeless) and factors such as alcohol abuse and dual use of smoking and smokeless seem to have reduced the link to oral cancer caused by smokeless use alone even further. In fact, the scientific research overwhelmingly shows evidence that smokeless tobacco carries very little to no health risks, at or less than 1% compared to never-users.

In spite of knowledge of this widely known research and the ready acceptance of harm reduction practices for less lethal STDs, public health officials refuse to acknowledge the obvious potential health benefits of promoting harm reduction in the form of smokeless tobacco products. In fact, they go out of their way to convince the public (and smokers) that smokeless products are just as deadly as smoking. While condoms, with a contribution of lowering health risks 18% - 92%, are required by the FDA to inform the public that condoms reduce the risk of STDs, smokeless tobacco products are required to display health warnings such as "This product is not a safe alternative to smoking," or "This product causes oral cancer." Rather than informing smokers that switching to smokeless tobacco would reduce their health risks by 99% or greater, the FDA actually prohibits smokeless tobacco companies from informing the public and forces them to misrepresent the comparative risks, causing the 440,000 people who die from smoking annually to believe that they may as well keep smoking.

Additionally, public health groups continue to lobby legislators to limit or outright ban and/or apply unwarranted "sin taxes" to smokeless products such as snus, lozenges, sticks and strips, claiming "no safe tobacco use" and over unfounded concerns that children and smokers will flock to these less deadly products rather than eschew tobacco products altogether. The concern about youth use is particularly comical, considering that banning these smokeless products would leave no competition for cigarettes, leading curious and reckless youths to smoking tobacco instead of using smokeless and increasing their health risks by 99%. Taxing these products to make them just as expensive as cigarettes also removes further incentive for current smokers - who have no intention of quitting tobacco - to switch to smokeless alternatives.

This insane double standard of approving and encouraging harm reduction for less lethal practices and denying them for tobacco must end. The "abstinence only" approach has resulted in smoking quit rates stagnating at 20% and public health efforts to stop smokeless use as an alternative could result in that percentage increasing again as smokeless products are made less available and more expensive for smokers who have already switched. Not only must the "quit or die" approach be rethought, but public health must stop misleading the public about the health risks and start encouraging inveterate smokers to switch. If they can call an 8% health risk "safe" when it comes to sex, then a less than 1% health risk from smokeless tobacco IS a "safe alternative to smoking." The great dream (lie) of total tobacco abstinence must end. Based on the scientific evidence, the time for tobacco harm reduction must be allowed its turn.

Concerned groups such as the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) and TobaccoHarmReduction.org are working to promote "safer" tobacco use. For more information on Tobacco Harm Reduction please visit casaa.org.

American Lung Association continues to misrepresent smokeless risks

2011-08-15T19:28:00.000-07:00

The ALA posted an article titled "Is There an Easy Way to Quit?" on it's web site today, which is filled with typically deceptive ANTZ tactics.

Making statements such as smokeless tobacco has "28 cancer-causing agents" and "increases the risk of developing cancer" and that e-cigarettes contain "cancer-causing agents and toxic chemicals" found in anti-freeze is not only leaving out key information, it relies upon questionable "science" and sensationalism to deceive the reader.

Smokeless Tobacco
Smokeless tobacco includes chewing tobacco, snuff, snus and some other new products. Some people think that using smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to smoking but that’s not the case. Smokeless tobacco has 28 cancer-causing agents and it increases the risk of developing cancer in the mouth, gums, and pancreas. The amount of nicotine that is absorbed from smokeless tobacco is 3 to 4 times the amount delivered by a cigarette.

The key information left out here is that many products we consume contain "cancer-causing agents." The question is, "How much?" Hot dogs can contain "cancer-causing agents." Whole milk can contain "cancer causing agents." Potato chips and french fries can contain "cancer-causing agents."

Yet we consider these foods to be "safe," because although the "agents" are present, the risk of actually getting cancer from them is extremely low.

While there is a "risk" of developing cancer in the mouth and gums from some smokeless tobacco, the risk is extremely small - somewhere between 0% to 4% - and smokeless snus studies have not shown any increased risk of oral or other cancers. The very few studies linking smokeless tobacco to a very low risk of pancreatic cancer have contradicted themselves, so the link remains inconclusive as to whether or not there is an actual risk at all.

Yet the ALA reports these as established facts and make it sound as though the health risks are great.

Once again the ALA has ignored scientific evidence and used inflammatory language to make something sound worse than it is by reporting the statement made by the FDA rather than the scientific evidence from the actual FDA testing.

e-Cigarettes
There is no scientific evidence establishing the safety of e-cigarettes. The FDA has found that these products contain cancer-causing agents and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. While some distributors directly or indirectly market e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates these products are safe or effective at helping smokers quit.

By this time, anyone who has bothered to read the actual FDA test results knows the truth vs. the spin put out by the FDA. The "cancer-causing agents" discovered in the e-cigarette cartridges tested were found in only one out of the 18 tested, were not found in the actual vapor that is inhaled and were at levels so low they were comparable to the levels of "cancer-causing agents" found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch.

Yet the ALA reports this as though e-cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer and hides the fact that the same levels of "cancer-causing agents" are found in the nicotine patch - which they endorse.

The inflammatory language used to describe the non-toxic amount of diethylene glycol detected (again in just one cartridge and not in the vapor) as "ingredients found in anti-freeze" is pure sensationalism. Diethylene glycol is also found in other FDA-approved products at non-toxic levels. Because the amount found in the one e-cigarette cartridge is so small and not in the actual vapor to which the user is exposed, the user would have to drink the contents of a few thousand cartridges per day in order to reach toxic levels.

Yet the ALA reports the presence of "ingredients found in anti-freeze" as though e-cigarettes have been shown to be just as poisonous as anti-freeze.

So let's see why using the products and methods endorsed by the ALA isn’t a good way to quit:

Nicotine Replacement Products (NRT)
NRTs includes nicotine gum, nicotine patches, nicotine lozenges and nicotine inhalers. Some people think that using NRT is a safe alternative to smoking but that’s not the case. NRT has cancer-causing agents and it increases the risk of developing oral cancer. The amount of nicotine that is absorbed from NRT is much lower than the amount delivered by a cigarette, which may contribute to a failure rate as high as 95%, greatly increasing the risk of relapse to deadly smoking. Nicotine is highly addictive and because these nicotine products are available over the counter to both adults and youth, they are easily abused, contributing to sustained addiction rather than cessation.

Chantix (Varenicline)
There is no scientific evidence establishing the long-term safety or effectiveness of varenicline. The FDA did not review varenicline for the usual 10 month period and it had not been tested in those under 18 years; those with mental illness or pregnant women and therefore is not recommended for use by these groups. The FDA has received reports of "suicidal acts and ideation, psychosis, and hostility or aggression, including homicidal ideation, were the most prominent psychiatric side effects. Multiple reports suggested that varenicline may be related to the loss of glycemic control and new onset of diabetes, heart rhythm disturbances, skin reactions, vision disturbances, seizures, abnormal muscle spasms and other movement disorders."

While some claim varenicline is "safe and effective," only 4.3% more smokers had still quit after one year compared with placebo and over 200 deaths have been linked to varenicline since its release to the public. France's government health insurance no longer subsidizes varenicline prescriptions due to questions about its safety. Canada and Australia have received more than 1,800 reports of adverse events related to varenicline as of May 2010. The number of adverse events associated with varenicline outnumber any other medication monitored by ISMP and more than twice as many deaths have been linked to varenicline than with any other medication currently on the U.S. market.

Really, American Lung Association? Compare all of that to zero reports of serious adverse events linked to e-cigarette use since they were introduced to Europe in 2004 and the U.S. in 2006.

The ALA claims that "Becoming smokefree is anything but simple, yet some folks will try almost anything that promises to a quicker, easier way to quit smoking. You can’t wave a magic wand and suddenly be done with the process of quitting." Yet millions of smokers world-wide, most of whom have tried and failed with the ALA's "safe and effective" methods, are calling e-cigarettes a "miracle" and the "easiest" method they've ever used to remain smoke-free. Sweden, where smokeless snus use is most common, boasts the lowest smoking rates in the E.U. without increased adverse health effects vs. never-smokers.

Any "fact" can be spun to appear to support an agenda. The difference is whether or not the "facts" are based on scientific evidence or if they are based upon junk science and made to sound reliable. Can you tell the difference?

So e-cigarettes are a “tobacco product.” Now what?

2011-05-03T20:55:00.000-07:00

Be sure to tune in to the CASAA discussion on this topic Thursday, May 5th at 7:00PM EST/8:00pm CST on VP-Live's BlogTalk radio show:http://www.blogtalkradio.com/vapersplace/2011/05/06/special-edition-so-were-a-tobacco-product-now-what

On April 25, 2011 the FDA announced its decision to forego petitioning for Supreme Court review of the legal victory won last December by a major electronic cigarette distributor. (See, http://www.casaa.org/files/ct%20app%...injunction.pdf )

"The FDA's decision to regulate electronic cigarettes under the Tobacco Act is a great victory for public health," stated Dr. Theresa Whitt, M.D., CASAA Medical Director.

While it is obvious that CASAA* sees this as a victory for vapers everywhere, it is understandable that many folks not as closely associated with the legal case view the announcement with some reservation and concern.

“Concerns for taxation and specific restrictions are my cautions. I guess by putting e-fluid under the Tobacco Act, it gives FDA power it previously didn't have and unless another source of nicotine comes cost effectively available, we are under the FDA thumb, which is horrifying,” wrote one CASAA member. “I'm not letting my guard down even if CASAA claims a success.”

It is a common theme on e-cigarette discussion boards. Yet many of the concerns are based on misunderstandings of the PACT Act, the FSPATC Act, the Tobacco Act, Chapter IX and the FDA’s existing regulatory power over nicotine products. Members mainly worry about the future of e-cigarettes regarding increased taxes and costs, the ability to purchase over the internet, excessive regulatory standards imposed on vendors, indoor use bans and reduction in effectiveness through reduced nicotine strengths and flavor restrictions.

The first thing to remember is that CASAA views this success as winning a major battle, but is well aware that there are many more battles ahead before we can claim to have won the war. All of the issues mentioned previously are concerns, but they are not as imminent nor as black and white as it may seem at first blush. In order to have a clear view of these issues, one must read the aforementioned legislation to understand how they currently relate to e-cigarettes. CASAA’s Legal Director Yolanda Villa and CASAA Advisor Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania have reviewed this legislation extensively as related to e-cigarettes.

As Director Villa recently wrote, “First the FDA has to propose its new regulations over e-cigarettes, then there is a public comment period and only after the whole administrative process is undertaken do the regulations become officially in effect. This can take up to two years, during which time we must all be vigilant and active in the battle to ensure that any actually official regulations are reasonable and science-based. And we must start to prepare, now, whatever evidence will be needed in that battle, starting with a very careful reading of the full [FDA] announcement and then paying equally close attention to other "guidance" documents the FDA issues as it proceeds."

"Yes, we have a lot of other battles to wage, but this concession to the court ruling in favor of Njoy is still a huge win for now!"

"And this does not mean automatic PACT Act inclusion [excluding internet/mail sales.] That would only happen with an amendment of the PACT Act itself. Nor does it mean an automatic flavor ban as that specifically only applies to cigarettes. All future regulation of e-cigs remains to be proposed, warred over - and that can include further litigation, even, if the proposals are unnecessarily harsh or rigid - and then ultimately enacted,“ said Villa.

“If e-cigarette sales/consumption continues to double, triple, quadruple in the next year, as I suspect it will, we'll have even more folks to advocate against unwarranted regulations, against state/local sales ban proposals and against state/local usage restrictions,” wrote Bill Godshall.

On the subject of tobacco taxes, CASAA Vice President Elaine Keller reminded members that tobacco taxes are set not by FDA classification but by the individual states. Tobacco tax rates, specifically “sin taxes” applied to combustible tobacco products to discourage smoking, should be directly related to perceived harm.

“One of the ways that we as consumers can help to keep the taxes down is to learn all we can about the concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction -- how switching to less harmful alternative sources of nicotine reduces health risks -- and then educate our legislators on these concepts. Whenever a state starts making noises about taxing smokeless products as highly as cigarettes, we need to be ready to make a lot of phone calls and send a lot of letters,” wrote Keller.

Regarding indoor use bans Keller reminded, “The issue regarding clean indoor air laws is not how a product is categorized. Snuff and chaw are tobacco products but are not covered in smoking bans. The issue is smoke and if someone tries to turn the issue into "The FDA says they're tobacco products" it will be our job to jump all over their case about it.”

As far as this being a "new" power for the FDA, the FDA actually has had the power to regulate tobacco products since the FSPTCA was passed and it has always regulated non-tobacco nicotine and smoking cessation treatment products. There was never a question about the FDA having power to regulate e-cigarettes in the U.S. So, it wasn't a "win" in any way on Monday for the FDA to be able to regulate e-cigarettes, because they always had that ability. That "win" occurred a long time ago in a completely different battle. This fight was about how they would be allowed to regulate e-cigarettes - as a drug or as tobacco. They wanted to regulate as a drug, we wanted to be a tobacco. The courts ruled in "our" favor; the FDA finally admitted defeat on Monday and that is 100% a win for e-cigs.

The point is that the PACT Act, flavor bans (per the FSPTCA), indoor use bans and tobacco taxation are specific laws which name and affect specific tobacco products – specifically combustible tobacco products. So not even all existing tobacco products are included in those laws, especially not e-cigarettes and it can take years to get them included. In the meantime, the vaping community will continue to grow in both numbers and influence, CASAA, harm reduction advocates and other vapers will have the opportunity to testify on behalf of e-cigarette regulation and safety and harm reduction studies can be completed. E-cigarettes will have science, truth and fact on their side.

Mr. Godshall summed it up quite succinctly. “If everyone who has negatively speculated about the future of e-cigarettes joined forces with CASAA, NVC, Smokefree Pennsylvania and tobacco harm reduction advocates, to hold the FDA accountable for promulgating sound regulations; to oppose e-cigarette taxes; to oppose e-cigarette sales and usage bans and to educate the public, we'll continue winning most - and maybe all - battles and e-cigarette sales will continue to skyrocket, which will give us even more clout in the public policy process,” he said.

*The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and those quoted and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of CASAA.

E-cigarette Research: Looking for love in all the wrong places?

2011-02-12T21:23:00.000-08:00

Two recent blog posts by Carl Philips brought to me the realization that reduced-harm researchers may be looking at e-cigarette research all wrong. His first post regarding a recent study by Dr. Michael Siegel got me thinking and the second one critiquing the study actually inspired me to comment.

It seems that even well-meaning researchers don't quite "get" e-cigarettes or their users and that is hampering their efforts to analyze them and their effectiveness.

As I mentioned in my comment on the blog post, e-cigarette users posting on forums (who have successfully switched and are fans) were not necessarily looking to "quit smoking," yet they seem to be the most successful at doing just that. Researchers, however, seem to focus their efforts on smokers who are unfamiliar with e-cigarettes and are looking for a smoking/nicotine cessation alternative rather than a smoking alternative. It seems that after so many years of researching nicotine cessation products that it is difficult even for reduced harm supporters to think outside of the box when it comes to researching a product as unique as electronic cigarettes.

In researching nicotine cessation products, one would obviously want to avoid surveys of "avid fans" of a particular product, as their opinion would be biased due to their satisfaction. Those subjects would also be in a particular segment of the population that was already in the mindset of wanting to quit anything to do with smoking and not indicative of the average smoker. Based upon my observations of the "avid fans" of e-cigarettes, this is not usually the case. Most e-cigarette users posting on forums comment that they specifically were NOT trying to quit. While they may have attempted to quit using traditional NRTs in the past, the most common reasons listed for trying e-cigarettes include saving money, protesting taxes, bypassing indoor use bans and the ability to "smoke" without the same health risks. Many e-cigarette users claim that they "accidentally" quit smoking. No one starts using NRTs without the intention to quit smoking!

Most research that I have seen to date has used test subjects who were looking to quit smoking and/or were previously unfamiliar with e-cigarettes. They were given or questioned about inferior products and had little to no instruction on technique. It's no wonder that they (and researchers) were underwhelmed with the results. Conversely, e-cigarette users who have successfully switched are not your average consumer. They typically purchased "mall brands" (basic and often over-priced e-cigarettes typically found in mall kiosks or through online advertisers), saw the potential and then went online to not only discover better products, but also learned techniques for using and maintaining the devices. In doing so, they have become knowledgeable and biased - precisely the "educated" consumers which researchers would normally avoid. Yet educated consumers are the key to the e-cigarette's success.

Researchers looking to determine the efficacy and safety of e-cigarettes need to take a step back and rethink their modus operandi. Traditional NRTs have an obvious purpose for consumers - to wean smokers from nicotine in order to help them quit smoking. The purpose of e-cigarettes for each individual smoker is less clear - those who try them aren't necessarily looking to quit. So, simply testing them in the same way and with the same pool of subjects as you would traditional NRTs is looking for the answer to the wrong question. Instead of asking, "Is this product a safer and effective smoking cessation product?" they need to ask, "Is this product proving to be a safer and effective smoking alternative?"

Therefore, the best course would be to first study those who have embraced the products, not those who have never used the product or are really looking for an NRT. Look at e-cigarettes not as if they could be successful NRT products but at how they are already being successfully utilized as smoking alternatives. Researchers must to tap into the established e-cigarette community to understand why they are being chosen, how they are successfully being used as reduced harm alternatives and to determine if there have been any adverse health effects with their sustained use. This large pool of subjects can show how e-cigarettes are already being used safely and effectively both to the general public and to the smokers who most need reduced harm alternatives. If researchers look in the right place and ask the right questions, they will find the love.

A Look at the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

2011-02-11T10:25:00.000-08:00

The FSPTCA seems to directly contradict its purpose to improve the health of smokers. Not only does it perpetuate the myth that ALL tobacco is equally dangerous, it pushes the idea of dependency itself being inherently dangerous, whether or not the addictive chemical is actually a serious health risk.

Direct quotes from the FSPTCA:

A consensus exists within the scientific and medical communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health effects.

Note that it says "tobacco products" and not "smoking," even though smokeless tobacco carries very little risk of cancer, heart disease and other SERIOUS health effects.

Nicotine is an addictive drug.

Yes, but it does not carry high health risks by itself. The word "addictive" is used in this sentence to say "bad" or "dangerous."

Tobacco use is the foremost preventable cause of premature death in America. It causes over 400,000 deaths in the United States each year, and approximately 8,600,000 Americans have chronic illnesses related to smoking.

Not including deaths questionably attributed to second-hand smoke, about 16.5% of all annual adult deaths in the U.S. are smokers/ex-smokers who died from smoking-related diseases (393,600 smoker deaths to 2,383,724 total U.S. adult deaths in 2007.) I cannot find data on smokers who died from non-smoking related diseases or natural causes. However, it's interesting to note that while 80-90% of lung cancer patients are smokers, only 10% of smokers actually get lung cancer. The 8,600,000 illnesses equals about 18.2% of smokers having a chronic illness related to smoking, which means 81.8% of smokers do not have smoking-related chronic diseases.

Not sure where I'm going with that one but it is interesting seeing it from a different persepective.

But it's important to note that they don't give actual statistics for smokeless tobacco and nicotine products. They are saying "tobacco" and then only give stats and health effects for "smoking," which intentionally leaves the reader thinking all tobacco use causes the same illnesses and diseases as smoking.

Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, one that typically requires repeated interventions to achieve long-term or permanent abstinence.

Tobacco dependence ITSELF is a chronic disease?

Definition of disease: "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment."

Hmmm...didn't realize tobacco grew in my body.

SMOKING can CAUSE disease, but tobacco dependence is not a disease in and of itself. Dependence upon something not normally needed to keep the body healthy/alive would be a DISORDER: "a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction."

Diabetics are dependent upon insulin, but insulin dependence is NOT a disease.

Exposure to radiation can cause disease, but taking risk and working at a job that exposes one to radioactive material is not a disease.

There may be underlying conditions which cause people to be more likely to become dependent upon nicotine/tobacco, but the dependency is not a disease. I suppose the same argument could be made for any chemical dependency.

Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is cessation, interventions should target all smokers to help them quit completely.

This sentence is nonsensical and redundant unless you deduct from it that "quit completely" means no tobacco or nicotine use, because isn't the definition of cessation "quit completely?" What this sentence really should say is "Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is to not smoke (cessation), interventions should target all smokers (not "tobacco users") to help them quit smoking completely. "

Well...DUH.

But what they are really saying is that they see no evidence that a smoker who switches to a smokeless alternative will reduce their health risks enough to justify encouraging them to switch and only complete abstinence from tobacco and nicotine is acceptable for them. It doesn't matter that repeated attempts at abstinence means repeated exposure to smoking, while the 1-2% risk from smokeless at least keeps them from smoking.

Well.....DUH again.

Again, they are expecting something to be 100% SAFE for treating tobacco dependence, when other disorders or diseases are usually treated with drugs that are SAFER. No medical treatment can be considered 100% SAFE, because they ALL have risk. This also lumps nicotine use in with smoking. Smokers aren't considered to have "quit completely" unless they quit any form of nicotine.

It is essential that the Food and Drug Administration review products sold or distributed for use to reduce risks or exposures associated with tobacco products and that it be empowered to review any advertising and labeling for such products. It is also essential that manufacturers, prior to marketing such products, be required to demonstrate that such products will meet a series of rigorous criteria, and will benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.

Reduced harm products are seen as a possible threat - a ruse or fraud by tobacco companies. The criteria that it be considered safe for current non-smokers too makes it nearly impossible to get accepted. How can any tobacco product or even nicotine be considered acceptable for non-smokers to start using, even if it reduced risks to smokers by 99%?

Unless tobacco products that purport to reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use actually reduce such risks, those products can cause substantial harm to the public health to the extent that the individuals, who would otherwise not consume tobacco products or would consume such products less, use tobacco products purporting to reduce risk.

So, the product not only has to reduce risk for smokers, but has to ensure that people who would otherwise avoid nicotine products because of the perceived danger won't start using them because they now perceive them to be low-risk.

This is the theory that the non-tobacco users who will start using low-risk tobacco products will so outnumber the smokers who switch that MORE people have health risks. It completely ignores the level of risks and probability. Here is what it would take for that to happen:

1000 non-users start using 1% risk products = 10 people get sick

10 current users switch to 1% risk products = 9 people get healthier

So, in the above scenario, more people who otherwise wouldn't use tobacco products got sick than people who switched from smoking got better, resulting in an increase in health risks.

The problem is, there is no evidence or even reason to believe that so many non-users will suddenly use and so few users will fail to switch even when given the truth about reduced harm alternatives. But there is no way for a company to guarantee (however unlikely) that non-users won't be at greater risk to the point where it offsets the health benefits of users switching. It's an impossible criteria for approval.

One good thing in the Act which I think was completely unintended:

in order to ensure that consumers are better informed, to require tobacco product manufacturers to disclose research which has not previously been made available, as well as research generated in the future, relating to the health and dependency effects or safety of tobacco products;

Hmmm...so if the tobacco companies have research which supports the fact that smokeless tobacco is in fact safer than smoking, they can now not only say that but are REQUIRED to inform people? Awesome!

Sources:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-11...-111publ31.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf
http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6138

Tobacco Prohibition and a Law of Physics

2011-02-09T13:40:00.000-08:00

If tobacco prohibitionists get their way, will it really be a 'win' for public health?

It's pretty obvious that the "anti-smoking" movement, based on the principle that smoking is the "leading cause of preventable deaths" in the world, has changed course. No longer is it only about the health risks of smoking. Unable (and often unwilling) to get smoking products banned in the U.S., these groups now target smokeless tobacco products; making unsubstantiated claims that these products somehow lead to smoking and must be banned to protect public health. They completely ignore, hide and even discourage the substantial research and science that contradicts their claims.

And they don't stop there.

After "wins" of banning rarely sold "flavored" cigarettes and insisting that smokeless products, such as snus and chew, display technically true (yet intentionally misleading) labels which declare that the much safer products are "not a safe alternative to smoking," they have set their sights on nearly harmless nicotine products such as tobacco lozenges and e-cigarettes. They are now somehow convinced that people accustomed to the pleasant taste and low health risks of these nicotine products will suddenly and inexplicably stop using their safer, pleasant-tasting product and switch to the harsh smoke, foul taste and increased health risks of cigarette smoking. Apparently any nicotine product, unless it is made by a pharmaceutical company and designed to get the user to wean off of nicotine, is now taboo. Anti-smoking for health reasons has now become anti-smokeless nicotine for no valid reason at all.

So, what if they get their way? What if tomorrow all tobacco and non-pharmaceutical nicotine products were removed from the market? Would this be the great victory for public health that the health groups claim it will be?

Well, let's look first at why people smoke. Most people will point to the obvious - that people are addicted to the nicotine. So why did they try smoking in the first place? Peer pressure? Parental example? Rebellion? Stress? Those could all be reasons to start. But while millions of people try smoking for various reasons, only a small percentage of them keep smoking. So, why don't they just stop like the others? If it was just that "nicotine is as addictive as heroin" as claimed, why do the vast majority of people who try smoking not become addicted? The most logical answer is that there is something about smoking, tobacco and nicotine that goes beyond the addictive nature of nicotine itself, a theory which is most simply supported by the fact that most nicotine-only products fail to actually keep smokers from smoking.

If it was just the need for nicotine, a piece of nicotine gum would be 100% effective as a tobacco replacement, yet the success rate actually hovers around 7%. Many smokers reportedly miss the mechanics themselves - the taste, the feel, the ritual and the social aspect of smoking. However e-cigarettes, which not only contain nicotine but also mimic the habits and ritual associated with smoking, reportedly still seem to be "missing something" for about 25% of users. Additionally, smokers who have been nicotine and cigarette-free for several years have been known to relapse under certain stressors or triggers - which strongly indicates that smoking is linked just as much to the smoker's mental health and less to simple chemical addiction and habit as thought.

Whether it's chemical or psychological, smokers seem to be predispositioned to smoking for various reasons. In spite of the negative health risks posed by smoking, tobacco and nicotine products seem to provide many benefits similar to various medications. Tobacco or smoking may be a stimulant for some and have a calming, stress-reducing effect on others. Some find it improves cognitive abilities or lessens attention deficit disorders. Others find it keeps them from other oral fixations such as over-eating or compulsive nail biting. The presence of nicotine and other monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), which act as anti-depressants, in cigarette smoke suggests that those suffering from mild depression often find relief from tobacco use. Research also shows that an inordinate number of those with schizophrenia or other mental health issues are smokers and may be somehow "self-medicating."

My experience within the e-cigarette community has shown me just how different smokers (and their reasons for smoking) really are. It's reflected in the choices smokers make when actually given a choice with e-cigarettes. Suddenly they can choose the nicotine level, no nicotine, flavors, styles, sizes and the vapor production to best fit their needs. While some e-cigarette users pick up a basic e-cigarette and never have the desire to smoke again, others can't give up tobacco altogether, no matter how high the nicotine content. They seem to need something else found in tobacco other than the smoking habit or nicotine, such as the other tobacco alkaloids or MAOIs. Many in this category find that using a smokeless tobacco such as snus, along with e-cigarettes, can satisfactorily replace smoking. On the other hand, some e-cigarette users just need a higher nicotine content, while others need no nicotine at all - just the look, taste and feel of smoking.

So, smoking seems to be helping people with a great variety of mental health issues and addictive behaviors and the sense of satisfaction is determined by different factors for each individual. The drawback is that this "cure all" comes in such a deadly delivery system. The question is that in trying to keep people from harming themselves with the delivery system, by targeting even low-risk products - such as smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes - simply because they contain nicotine, will the goal of improving public health really be achieved? What will the people who rely on smoking turn to instead? Will those with oral fixations turn to food and become obese and face other health risks? Will those looking for relief from depression or other mental health issues, smokers who may currently avoid recreational drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs and even alcohol, turn to even more dangerous behaviors and/or addictions? Will all of these smokers just quit tobacco and nicotine use and somehow be magically cured of all of the underlying issues that caused them to continue smoke in the first place? Is it really reasonable to expect them to stop something that works for them and simply substitute a pharmaceutical drug in its place? Are pharmaceutical drugs really free from risks and side effects themselves? Are those dependent upon tobacco-specific chemicals any more "weak" or "immoral" than those dependent upon pharmaceutical chemicals to get through their day?

The solution to the health issues related to smoking is not to remove access to nicotine and tobacco and hope all of the reasons why smokers smoked go away too. The solution is to develop and make accessible the safer products which can address the real needs of smokers, without passing moral judgment on the product or the user. Smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes already address many of those issues with very low health risks. The majority of scientific research does not support the claims that their use will lead to smoking, so other than the irrational vilification of tobacco and nicotine and the moral judgment of the user, there is no valid reason to call for their removal.

The likelihood of cigarettes being banned for sale (and without a black market created) is slim to none. Therefore, those affected by the removal of safer tobacco and long-term nicotine products are not only current smokers, but those who for whatever reason may choose to try smoking and find themselves dependent in the future. So long as tobacco cigarettes remain available and so long as there are people who find the benefits outweigh the risks, removing safer options merely increases the health risks for those who may have otherwise sought them out. Smokers and “would-have-been” smokers deprived of all sources of tobacco or nicotine, including low risk products, will likely seek out an alternative for relief that may even more dangerous and detrimental than smoking itself.

Basic physics - for every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Considering the likely reaction of a ban on all tobacco and nicotine products, can prohibitionists really forsee that it will result in a "win" for public health?

Discovery News: How safe are e-cigarettes?

2011-01-29T10:18:00.000-08:00

Discovery News recently published an online article regarding e-cigarettes.

Amongst other things, e-cigarette opponents continue make the claims that while they somehow know nothing about what is in e-cigarettes, in spite of 16 different reports available to them, e-cigarettes are probably more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes and are a threat to our youth. In case you don't buy their claim about safety, they argue that being addicted to anything is the problem, regardless of whether or not the product actually has been shown to have little or no health risks.

Prue Talbot is being sneaky by accusing all of those available e-cigarette studies as being suspect because they are paid for by companies. She's banking on the fact that most Americans don't realize that all of the tests and studies submitted to the FDA for approval are also paid for by the companies. That is the only way to get them tested. Who else is going to pay for them?

New York Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal has ignored the plethora of reports emailed, faxed and mailed to her and continues to claim that e-cigarettes "are a mystery," and yet, claims that e-cigarettes contain chemicals which are more dangerous than those found in tobacco cigarettes. If they are a mystery, how does she know there are dangerous chemicals? She insists if she could quit that anyone could quit, completely ignoring the multitude of correspondence from e-cigarette users that they couldn't quit using any other method or don't wish to give up nicotine and shouldn't have to. Rosenthal snidely remarks, "If people want the easy way to just get addicted to another nicotine delivery system, I hope soon they'll have to look elsewhere." Given that e-cigarette users have told her that they have tried everything else, she seems unmoved by the fact that it leaves tobacco cigarettes as their only option.

Dr. Siegel's e-cigarette research paper clearly shows that there is nothing in e-cigarettes to make them even remotely as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes. The 4 ingredients in e-cigarettes - nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerine and artificial flavoring - are already found in tobacco cigarettes, yet e-cigarettes lack the toxic chemicals and high levels of carcinogens found in tobacco cigarettes. It's like claiming non-alcoholic beer "may" be as intoxicating (and therefore equally or more dangerous) as real beer because they both have bubbles, malt and barley. There is simply no logic to the argument.

The FDA study Talbot and Rosenthal cite found that one cartridge of eighteen was contaminated with a non-toxic amount of diethylene glycol and that the levels of carcinogens were as low as the nicotine patch. Diethylene glycol has not been found in any e-cigarettes since. If anything, the FDA test proved that there were no toxic amounts of any chemicals and extremely low carcinogens. Yet they disingenuously claim that there is a great danger to the public. If the carcinogens and non-toxic chemicals found in e-cigarettes are a danger, why are they still selling the patch?

Additionally, the double-speak of e-cigarette opponents is painfully obvious. They claim tasty flavors are a scheme to attract youth to e-cigarettes, yet ignore the fact that pharmaceutical nicotine gum and lozenges come in Cinnamon Surge, Fruit Chill, Fresh Mint, Cherry and Cappuccino flavors. Additionally, youth smoking is on the rise even though flavored cigarettes have been banned since 2006. Youth aren't anymore attracted to "safer" e-cigarettes than they are to tasty pharmaceutical gums and lozenges. Surveys of thousands of e-cigarette users found that the vast majority are former smokers between 35 and 65 years old. There is absolutely no evidence that young adults, and therefore copy cat teens, are even interested in the start-up costs and maintenance involved with e-cigarettes. It's much easier, cheaper and more "cool" to buy a pack of cigarettes.

Prue Talbot's study found leaky cartridges and inaccurate labeling. Ironically, she didn't bother to test e-cigarettes to find out what was actually in them. If quality control is an issue, then address those companies which get a failing mark, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The FDA has the power to regulate quality and safer designs by classifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products rather than continuing its quixotic charge to classify them as nicotine addiction treatments. This would also automatically ban sales to minors.

These simply aren't a treatment for nicotine addiction. The vast majority use them as an alternative source of nicotine that still gives them the smoking experience without the high health risks. There is nothing else on the market that can simultaneously provide relief for nicotine addiction, greatly reduce health risks and simulate smoking. If they didn't have e-cigarettes, most users would still be using tobacco cigarettes - not gums and patches. E-cigarettes are not an alternative for gums and patches, they are an alternative for tobacco cigarettes. These folks don't want to quit nicotine, they just want to quit smoking. Once people like Linda Rosenthal, Prue Talbot and their supporters get that through their thick skulls, they'll understand why their crusade is fundamentally wrong.

Let's remember that the anti-tobacco movement started because of the high health hazards linked to smoking, not the extremely low health risks of smokeless nicotine addiction. E-cigarette users may remain addicted to nicotine, but the only reason they would ever return to smoking is if these "well-meaning" anti-smoking zealots ban e-cigarettes and leave tobacco cigarettes as their only option.

Join CASAA.org and fight this insanity!

New York at it again - your state could be next!

2011-01-23T22:08:00.000-08:00

The New York State Assembly Health Committee is meeting this coming Tuesday to discuss Bill AO1468.

This bill would not only ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors, but proposes to ban sales of any products which contain nicotine that are "not defined by law as a tobacco product or approved by the United States food and drug administration for sale as a tobacco use cessation or harm reduction product." This of course has the intended effect of banning e-cigarettes, because although the U.S. Appellate Court has supported Federal Judge Richard Leon's opinion that e-cigarettes should be regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product, the FDA still refuses to do so. Because consumers are replacing tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes and feel that they have "quit smoking," the FDA's stance is that makes them a drug delivery device, even though the majority users have not quit nicotine at all - just smoking. Last I knew, nicotine addiction was considered the disease, not how you got your nicotine. Quitting smoking and quitting nicotine are two very different issues.

The justification for this proposed change in the New York law is

Recent advertisements have touted "e-cigarettes" as a healthier alternative to traditional tobacco consumption and as a tobacco cessation product. These electronic cigarettes are battery-operated devices that vaporize cartridges filled with nicotine, flavor and other chemicals that the user inhales. Advertisements for these products omit any mention of FDA testing that found users inhale carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient found in antifreeze.

Given the unregulated nature of this product, there is no way of knowing the amount of nicotine in each cigarette, the amount that is delivered with each inhalation, or the contents of the vapor created in the process. "E-cigarettes" are often marketed and sold to young people and are readily available online and in shopping malls. They are produced in different flavors, such as chocolate and mint, in order to increase their appeal to all segments of the population. These products also lack any health warnings comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or conventional cigarettes. These devices are often made overseas in countries with less stringent standards for product quality than exist in the United States.

First, let's look at the claim that e-cigarette companies fail to advertise the FDA testing. The FDA tested just two brands of electronic cigarettes. Why would other companies have to claim that the FDA testing had any relevance to their product, as their product wasn't tested by the FDA? The diethylene glycol was found in just one of the 18 tested cartridges and has not been found in any other independent tests of ANY e-cigarette brands. Additionally, neither the FDA nor any other lab has found toxic levels of ANY chemical in e-cigarettes. Expecting companies to tell consumers that there are "toxic chemicals" and "diethylene glycol" in their products is like expecting the makers of Skippy peanut butter to tell consumers there is salmonella in their product because another brand of peanut butter was once contaminated with salmonella.

Claiming that users inhale carcinogens is nothing but hypocritical spin. Are pharmaceutical companies required to warn nicotine patch users that they are "absorbing carcinogens?" The FDA tests showed that the extremely low level of carcinogens (tobacco-specific nitrosamines) found in their e-cigarette samples were nearly identical to the levels found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch. So, if those extremely low levels are of concern in e-cigarettes, they should also be of concern for nicotine patch users. In reality, if e-cigarette companies were actually allowed to report what the FDA really found, rather than the spin the FDA presented to the public, they would be able to show that the FDA tests actually showed e-cigarettes to be non-toxic and no more carcinogenic than the nicotine patch. Somehow, I don't think that's what those proposing this bull - er - bill have in mind.

This bill also pulls out the tried-and-true "save the children" tactics. These are completely unsubstantiated claims that these products appeal to and are targeted at youth. They completely ignore surveys of thousands of e-cigarette users which show the average user to be closer to 40 than 14 and offer absolutely no examples of actual sales to minors. The claim that chocolate and mint flavors are intended to "appeal to all segments of the population" (read "kids") is really saying nothing. What product doesn't try to appeal to as many consumers as possible? Additionally, nicotine gums and lozenges come in Cherry, Cappuccino, Fresh Mint, Fruit Chill and Cinnamon Surge. The Nicorette site says their products have "been developed with palatable flavors" and "sweetened with sorbitol," (another trusted product.) One can only surmise this is to make their products more appealing to all segments of the population, as well, yet no one accuses Glaxo SmithKline of marketing to youth.

The bill sponsors want e-cigarettes to come with warnings, but as of yet, there have been no serious adverse effects reported linked to e-cigarette use. The irony being, of course, that tobacco cigarettes do come with warnings and have been linked to serious health risks, yet remain perfectly legal. If New York legislators get their way they will have successfully banned a low-carcinogen, non-toxic product - one which also has been reported by thousands of users to have provided improved health benefits - and protected the market share of tobacco cigarettes.

Finally, if the FDA would have given up this quixotic charge to classify e-cigarettes as a drug delivery device (rather than an alternative tobacco product) months ago, they could already have e-cigarettes subject to the same regulations as other tobacco products - complete with warning labels and banning sales to minors. It's the FDA's own obsessive behavior, unable to move on even after losing on appeal, which has kept e-cigarettes completely unregulated!

Your tax dollars in action.

NOTE: The Health Committee meets this Tuesday. If you would like to express your feelings of opposition to the New York Assembly Members, whether you are a New York resident or not, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association has a Call To Action page here: http://www.casaa.org/CTA/article.asp?articleID=114&l=a&p=

Don't let this ridiculous law pass - your state could be next!

SmokeFree Wisconsin Misleading Public about Orbs risk

2010-10-27T20:46:00.000-07:00

SmokeFree Wisconsin posted a convincing blog post implying to consumers that Camel Orbs carry a high risk of cancer, based on facts culled from a CDC report on smokeless tobacco.

What SmokeFree Wisconsin fails to tell consumers is that report is based on old-fashioned chew and snuff, NOT newer products such as lozenges, strips, sticks and snus.

Stating simply that "smokeless tobacco contains 28 known, cancer-causing toxins," is misleading and a half-truth. The CDC made this declaration about chew and snuff based mostly on a 2007 WHO report, "Smokeless Tobacco and Some Tobacco-specific N-Nitrosamines." The tobacco products they analyzed were not the refined, fine tobacco used in Orbs and other newer smokeless tobacco products. The same levels of nitrosamines (TSNAs) found in those products have not been found in products such as Orbs and snus.

In fact, in June 2010, the Canadian Non-Smokers' Rights Association endorsed tobacco harm reduction, including the use of products such as Orbs, snus and electronic cigarettes. They released NSRA Harm Reduction Policy Analysis June-2010* which showed the true risks of cancer associated with such products were minimal, if not non-existent. Mind you - this is a report by an organization concerned for non-smokers' rights:

The risk of oral cancer varies by type of smokeless tobacco product and is much greater for dry snuff than for moist snuff. The relative risk of oral cancer from use of dry snuff is 5.9 compared to 1.2 from chewing tobacco and 1.0 from moist snuff.37 A meta-analysis in 2007 concluded that the type of smokeless tobacco used in America or Europe “carries at most a minor increased risk of oral cancer.”38 The Royal College of Physicians has concluded that “the risk of oral cancer associated with use of low-TSNA tobacco products such as Swedish snus is small, and possibly non-existent.”39

The report also warns that comparing products such as snus and Orbs with smokeless chew and snuff are misleading:

When considering studies of the health risks of smokeless tobacco, it is important to distinguish between smokeless products such as traditional spit and chew (in Canada the most popular brands are Copenhagen and Skoal) and Swedish-style snus. Most studies of the health risks of smokeless tobacco use do not make the distinction between snus and other forms of smokeless tobacco.

• Oral cancer

– The risk of oral cancer varies according to the type of smokeless tobacco. Two Swedish studies found no elevated risk of oral cancer from snus use, and the findings constituted the grounds for the removal of the oral cancer warning from snus products in Sweden in 2001.50

• Leukoplakia

– There is a very high rate of leukoplakia development from snus use, much higher than with other forms of smokeless tobacco; however, the lesions are mostly due to irritation and only rarely progress to oral cancer.51

• Heart disease

– There are very few studies of the risk of heart disease from use of Swedish snus that also correct for possible confounding variables, including smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke. Of six studies of risks of heart attack risk among long-term Swedish snus users, only one found an increased risk, and five found no increased risk over never tobacco users.52 A meta-analysis in 2009 of eleven studies, eight in Sweden and three in the US, provides consistent evidence of a small increase in risk of fatal heart attack and stroke, with no evidence of a difference in effect of the smokeless products.

The report goes on to discuss lozenges very similar to Orbs:

Small manufacturer Star Scientific has been selling two forms of dissolvable tobacco product for several years—Ariva, targeting cigarette smokers, and Stonewall, aimed at users of smokeless tobacco. Both products come in the form of a small pellet, slightly larger than a Tic Tac mint.59

Ariva and Stonewall have levels of TSNAs similar to Swedish snus.60

While the pellets may contain higher amounts of nicotine, the average nicotine user tends to "self-regulate" and would simply use less pellets than they would smoke. The craving for nicotine subsides after exposure, so the user would be less likely to use as many Orbs as they would cigarettes. Additionally, the nicotine content in cigarettes varies just as widely and the low nicotine content in NRTs such as nicotine gums, lozenges and patches make them highly ineffective as a substitute for smoking.

Of course, none of these products should be in the hands of children, but claiming that these products are "not a safe alternative to cigarettes" belies the truth that they are a SAFER alternative to smoking and misleads the public into believing that smokers would not have any health benefit by switching. However, even if these smokeless products still have a 1-2% risk of adverse health effects, that still makes them 98-99% less risky than smoking.

As the Canadian report urges:

The public has the right...to accurate information about the relative risks of using tobacco products and to make choices based on the facts. The current warning on smokeless tobacco products, “This product is not a safe alternative to smoking,” is woefully inadequate as it provides no information regarding relative risks.

SmokeFree Wisconsin apparently believes that Wisconsin consumers do not deserve the same right.

If SmokeFree Wisconsin is truly concerned about nicotine products getting into the hands of children, they should also warn parents of another candy-like nicotine product. This product is white (Orbs are brown) and looks EXACTLY like a Tic Tac. They even have those "quitting sucks" commercials with a shark attack and other humorous scenarios that kids think are funny.

Meet the Nicotrette Mini:

Nice "trick" SmokeFree Wisconsin.

*NOTE: The NSRA Harm Reduction Policy Analysis June-2010 also has positive comments on E-cigarettes. I highly recommend reading this report for many facts about tobacco harm reduction.

Memorial Day and the Myth of Nicotine

2010-06-01T21:51:00.000-07:00

This holiday weekend I had the opportunity to speak to my husband's aunt regarding electronic cigarettes. She was smoking and showed interest. Ever the e-cig evangelist, I excitedly told her of the advantages of smokefree alternatives.

To my utter dismay, she told me her doctor had given her a prescription for a "low nicotine" or "no nicotine" cigarette, claiming that the nicotine was the dangerous component of smoking. (After an extensive Google search, I couldn't find a "prescription no/low nicotine cigarette," so I've concluded she meant a Nicotrol Inhaler.)

It took me several attempts to get her to understand that nicotine, absent the smoke, is relatively safe. "It's the smoke that contains all of the toxins," I told her. She was shocked, as the vilification of nicotine by the anti-tobacco groups had completely convinced her that nicotine is what killed people.

That led, of course, to a discussion about smoke-free tobacco and another surprise revelation - that smoke-free tobacco is up to 99% safer than smoking cigarettes. The real shock for her was finding out that the risk of mouth and throat cancer was actually up to 50% less than the risk from smoking. As with other typically brainwashed consumers, she believed that smokeless tobacco products actually had a HIGHER risk of mouth/throat cancer. To add to the irony, she had discouraged her occasional-smoker son from using oral tobacco, not because of the perceived health risks, but to prevent damage to his costly dental work. Consequently, he remained an occasional smoker, when simple, good dental hygiene would have reduced his health risks by 99%.

Finally, she told me that she never filled the prescription from her doctor, because insurance didn't cover it and just 30 doses cost $35. So, she continues smoking. After informing her of the truth about the health benefits of smokeless alternatives and electronic cigarettes and especially the low cost, she was quite interested in getting information on how to order.

This whole conversation graphically illustrated the tragic consequences of the lies and myths perpetuated by the groups calling themselves "public health." A 50-something year old woman, who knows that she should quit smoking for her health and well-being, would have been willing to switch to a less hazardous product had she known the facts. "Public health" failed her. Their scare tactics failed to inspire her to quit, their costly "treatments" were out of her financial means and their refusal to endorse reduced harm tobacco products (in a prohibitionist belief that any kind of nicotine use is unacceptable) needlessly exposed her to the most harmful tobacco product available.

It's my hope that groups like CASAA, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, will be able to fill the huge gap left by the tobacco control and public health groups, by educating committed smokers and giving them the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions about their health and well-being.

If my conversation with my husband's aunt is any indication, the myth of nicotine as the killer in cigarettes continues to be pervasive and persuasive and that is what continues killing people.

The concept of reduced harm tobacco has been around for at least 15 years. In that time, public health and tobacco control have had the opportunity to save many lives. This Memorial Day, I found myself thinking of the 6.6 million smokers who died because of the prohibitionist agenda of "public health."

SmokeFree Wisconsin not about public health

2010-05-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

In a recent blog post, I addressed a recent blog post by SmokeFree Wisconsin regarding smokeless tobacco products.

After a few readers questioned the logic of refusing to do "less harm" in promoting the use of smokeless tobacco over smoked tobacco, the author replied,

Our priorities include proving for smoke-free environments, increasing the price of tobacco, and ensuring there is a strong, comprehensive tobacco prevention and control program.

To serve those priorities we partner to collect data, data which indicates that smokeless use is already on the rise in WI. We use data which shows that the burden of tobacco is NOT reduced by the use smokeless products.

We are not exposing smokers to any risks. We pass policies, we don't do treatment.

Smokeless is not less harmful. Period.

So, where is the goal of protecting public health in this statement?

Where is the accountability that in setting policies, they affect public behavior?

Since when did it become "the burden of tobacco" over the burden of smoking and it's affect on public health?

Where is the science that proves that smokeless is not less harmful than smoking? There is plenty of science that proves the greatest exposure to toxins and carcinogens is in the smoke - we see it in the news and in public statements from groups such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.

If what SmokeFree Wisconsin says is true about smokeless tobacco, wouldn't the opposite also be true? That smoking is no more dangerous than smokeless tobacco? So why the need for indoor smoking bans, if the smoke isn't the real danger?

In its policy to put eradicating any tobacco use as a priority over getting people to quit smoking, SmokeFree Wisconsin completely ignores valid, scientific research and urges people who use tobacco products to continue to use only its most dangerous form - smoking.

Because if smokeless tobacco is no less dangerous, why switch from smoking?

SmokeFree Wisconsin Doesn't Believe in Reducing Harm for Smokers

2010-05-18T15:16:00.000-07:00

In a May 6, 2010 blog post, SmokeFree Wisconsin applauded the new, larger warnings on smokeless tobacco products.

That would have been fine and dandy, if not for these comments by the author:

This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes. This product can cause mouth cancer This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss....

and

The implication here is that you can dance the night away with Snus in your mouth and never have to go out for a cigarette and miss you favorite song.

I couldn't help but comment and surprisingly, my comment was accepted for once:

And WHY that is a bad thing? If they are using snus (which is scientifically shown to be up to 98% less dangerous than smoking tobacco) instead of smoking, wouldn't that be better for the smoker's health? Especially if they would already be smoking?

I understand you want everyone to avoid tobacco products completely, but that isn't going to happen. If offered the choice between deadly tobacco smoke and the far safer smokeless tobacco products, why lie to them and tell them smokeless products are just as bad? All you are doing is (encouraging) the use of a far deadlier product, because people will think they may as well keep smoking.

Granted, we don't want kids to start using tobacco products, but by misrepresenting the comparative safety of smokeless alternatives, you are exposing actual smokers to far greater risks.

The author's reply:

The studies of which you refer are in reference to Swedish Snus, a product which is entirely unlike American made Snus. Moreover public health has a duty and responsibility to "do no harm." The ethics which guide the profession do not promote "doing less harm."
Thanks for your comment.

And my comment back (we'll see if it gets posted):

No offense, Erich, but baloney.

If that were the case, public health wouldn't advise people to use low-fat and sugar-free foods - they'd be telling them not to eat it at all. People would be told not to drive at all, because seatbelts would only "do less harm" and aren't 100% safe.

Reduced harm/risk has been around for years in foods and other public health and safety, why not tobacco?

To tell people to just keep smoking, because smokeless tobacco isn't 100% safe make no sense. I know you want people to quit altogether, but that isn't what is happening with over 20% of the U.S. population who still smoke. By making smokers believe that smokeless alternatives are no safer than smoking, they will just keep smoking, while they could have been breaking their habit of smoking and reducing their health risks.

I'm not talking about encouraging non-smokers to use smokeless tobacco - that'd be irresponsible.

I'm talking about COMMITTED SMOKERS, who are already pumping 4,000 toxic chemicals and 60 carcinogens into their bodies and can't or won't quit. If they won't quit smoking, can you really argue that it isn't the duty of public health officials to alert them to the fact that smokeless products lack up to 98% of those chemicals and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke? (And we know it's the SMOKE, otherwise indoor bans would include smokeless tobacco. Or is this "TobaccoFree Wisconsin" now?)

How is that any different from telling someone to use low-fat products, which aren't as good as abstaining altogether, but at least LESS detrimental to their health?

Not informing smokers that many smokeless tobacco products are up to 98% safer than smoking is like telling a morbidly obese person that they may as well eat Ben and Jerry's, because low-fat yogurt still has "some fat."

I guess it's pretty much self-explanatory. These smokefree "public health" groups are no longer about real public health or even about the "smoke." They are about tobacco abstinence - PERIOD. And it doesn't matter who gets hurt in their rush to force that ideal. How many smokers will die because these groups refused to "do less harm?"

The argument against encouraging committed smokers to switch to reduced harm products, because they can't encourage "doing less harm," holds no water. Seatbelts, helmets, low-fat and reduced calorie foods - are all products meant to do "less harm" to or reduce harm for the user. Doctors regularly prescribe treatments that are risky or dangerous in the hope to save a patient's life. If it were not for the use of deadly chemicals, which make the patient extremely ill and could kill them, many cancer patients would not be survivors today.

So don't try to tell me that public health cannot reconcile itself with "doing less harm."

Are Electronic Cigarettes Safer than Traditional Cigarettes?

2010-05-15T10:47:00.000-07:00

by Kristin Noll-Marsh

Recently, there has been media coverage about the safety of electronic cigarettes, which may be confusing and a bit scary. Even groups like the American Lung Association and American Heart Association are attempting to remove them from the market. They claim that there is no "proof" that electronic cigarettes are any safer than traditional cigarettes.

Does this claim make sense? Read more and decide for yourself.

History
Electronic cigarettes were intended to be a less-toxic (or “safer”) option to smoking tobacco cigarettes, but not a treatment for nicotine addiction.

Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik invented the e-cigarette in 2003 with a patented ultrasonic technology. Hon Lik was inspired to invent this smoking alternative, because his father was dying from lung cancer. Since then, most e-cigarette manufacturers use a heating element that vaporizes the nicotine liquid instead.

Read more: http://emerging-business-markets.suite101.com/article.cfm/sources_for_imported_ecigarettes#ixzz0TNTSptUJ

Nicotine
It’s well documented that currently available treatments for smokers, nicotine replacement therapies such as patches and gums, are largely ineffective, with just a 7.2% success rate after 12 months. This is largely due to the fact that smokers aren’t just addicted to the nicotine; they are addicted to the actual habit and ritual of smoking a cigarette. It is a comfort system for them. That is even stronger than nicotine addiction.

However, the greatest danger in cigarette smoking is not the nicotine. Nicotine, while highly addictive, is a stimulant similar to caffeine and non-toxic in low, intermittent doses, which is why it can be used in nicotine replacement therapies. Nicotine, by itself, does NOT cause cancer, but is known to have some minor health effects. Cigarette smoke, on the other hand, contains more than just nicotine. It contains thousands of toxic chemicals and over 60 known carcinogens.

Hon Lik seems to have believed that there could be an option for smokers, to still have the act of smoking, while limiting exposure to the chemicals, toxins and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke. He had to have known that the smoker would still need relief from the nicotine addiction; so to get them to switch to the less toxic electronic cigarettes, he had to include doses of nicotine.

Read more: http://www.drugs.com/sfx/nicotine-side-effects.html

Diethylene glycol
You may have heard that the FDA announced that diethylene glycol, an ingredient in antifreeze, is found in electronic cigarettes. This is a gross exaggeration. The FDA found a non-toxic amount (approx. 1%) of diethylene glycol in just one Smoking Everywhere-brand prefilled cartridge.

Diethylene glycol is a toxic substance used in anti-freeze, but it is not used in the manufacture of electronic cigarette liquid. Because it used in tobacco processing, cheaper, less refined nicotine may become contaminated with traces of diethylene glycol. It is the most likely explanation of how one cartridge may have been contaminated. The other 17 cartridges were not found to have been contaminated with diethylene glycol. Subsequent testing of other electronic cigarettes found no diethylene glycol, so it appears that the one cartridge was an anomoly.

Read more:
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylene_glycol

Propylene Glycol
Propylene glycol is commonly confused in the media with diethylene glycol as the "toxic chemical found in antifreeze" the FDA found. (Anti-freeze is actually most commonly made with ethylene glycol.) While propylene glycol can be found in some antifreeze, it is actually added to it to make it less toxic to children and animals.

“Antifreeze typically contains ethylene glycol as its active ingredient, but some manufacturers market propylene glycol-based antifreeze, which is less toxic to humans and pets. The acute, or short-term, toxicity of propylene glycol, especially in humans, is substantially lower than that of ethylene glycol. Regardless of which active ingredient the spent antifreeze contains, heavy metals contaminate the antifreeze during service. When contaminated, particularly with lead, used antifreeze can be considered hazardous and should be reused, recycled, or disposed of properly.”

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/antifree.htm

Propylene glycol is actually approved for human consumption by the FDA and approved for human inhalation by the EPA. It is a common ingredient in many foods and medicines, such as McCormick (and other brand) imitation food flavoring, toothpaste, cough syrup, hand sanitizer, lotions, cosmetics, asthma inhalers and more.

Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs)
The FDA announced that it's analysis found “carcinogens” in the samples tested. These tobacco-specific nitrosamines are created during the curing and processing of tobacco and would be expected to be found, in trace amounts, in nicotine extracted from processed tobacco. In tobacco smoke, they are found in high concentration and are a leading cause of tobacco-related cancers. These carcinogens were found in just trace amounts in the electronic cigarette liquid and are also found in other tobacco and nicotine products, including nicotine replacement pharmaceuticals such as nicotine patches, gum and inhalers. A study at Oxford concluded that the highest levels of these nitrosamines are found in the reaction of tobacco smoke and minimal in NRTs. Testing of Ruyan electronic cigarettes by Health New Zealand found electronic cigarette TSNAs are comparable to the levels found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch.

Absolute safety does not exist for any drug, but
relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, Ruyan
e-cigarette emissions appear to be several
magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a
medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and
addiction potential. - Dr. Murray Laugesen, Health New Zealand

Read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines
http://www.ecassoc.org/downloads/Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/18/3/587.pdf
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

Flavoring
Most companies use water-based, food-grade flavorings for their liquids. They make up a very small percentage of the total liquid content. These have been approved by the FDA for ingestion, but the effect of long-term inhalation has not been tested.

Most of the ingredients in electronic cigarette liquid has been tested and approved for long-term exposure in humans, but not when they are all mixed together. There are also no set minimal standards for manufacturing and the FDA has not approved any liquid for sale or use. The FDA wants to classify electronic cigarettes as a drug and drug delivery device for smoking cessation and wants appropriate studies done to show that they are safe. It is unklnown if the FDA will compare the safety of electronic cigarettes to that of smoking tobacco cigarettes long term or to using NRTs short term, to quit smoking.

Injuries and Illness Attributed to Electronic Cigarettes:
Electronic cigarettes have been on the world market for over 5 years and in the U.S. for over 2 years. To date, there have been no public reports or complaints of injury or illness attributed to electronic cigarette use.

Compare that to complaints against the FDA-Approved smoking cessation drug, Chantix. Since it's introduction to the market 4 years ago, there have been numerous complaints of erratic behavior, suicidal impulses, violent behavior and over 50 deaths/suicides reportedly attributed to the drug.

Read More: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/publichealthadvisories/ucm051136
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pfizer-updates-chantix-label-in-us-to-include-warning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varenicline

Traditional Cigarette Toxicity:
Various, peer-reviewed studies show that traditional cigarette smoke contains 4,000 or more chemicals - many of them highly toxic. They also show that approximately 60 of those chemicals are human carcinogens/TNSAs.

Read More: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm198176.htm

The typical electronic cigarette liquid contains water, propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine & food-grade flavoring, none of which are found in toxic levels nor known carcinogens.

Now you have the facts. You decide, for yourself, if you think electronic cigarettes are safe (or at least safer than tobacco cigarettes) for you.

Why do anti-smoking groups oppose tobacco harm reduction?

2010-05-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

An excellent speech by Christopher Snowdon, author of "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist"

Similarly, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights - in a press release titled Electronic Cigarettes are NOT a safe alternative! - criticised the e-cigarette specifically because it mimics the act of smoking and because it contains nicotine. Only pharmaceutical nicotine products escape criticism, partly because they are marketed as a medicinal cure for a ‘disease’ and partly because they administer nicotine without providing pleasure. This has led to a somewhat inconsistent view of nicotine, described as being perfectly safe in pharmaceutical products but highly toxic in e-cigarettes, snus and other tobacco products. The EPA describes it as “acutely toxic (Category 1) by all routes of exposure (oral, dermal and inhalation)” while the MHRA says thats “nicotine, while addictive, is actually a very safe drug.”

Read Full Story

Electronic Cigarette Users Fighting Back

2010-05-05T20:33:00.000-07:00

Petition Aims to Save Lives

Tobacco smokers aren't known as a politically active group. Even though they make up over 20% of the adult population in the U.S. and make a significant contribution to federal and state revenues, after years of being vilified and desocialized, they've pretty much accepted that the rest of the population won't acknowledge them until they either quit smoking or die.

Their electronic cigarette-using counterparts, however, have no intention of going so quietly into the night. They believe their devices are the antithesis of tobacco cigarettes and are life-savers worthy of a petition against moves by the FDA and numerous anti-smoking groups to remove electronic cigarettes from the market.

Electronic cigarettes have been on the market worldwide for over five years.1 Some models look like a traditional cigarette, but they are actually made from a battery-powered heating element that vaporizes a water-based, flavored nicotine solution into an inhalable mist.2

As of this writing, nearly 600 people had signed and commented on the six-day-old petition posted at EcigsSaveLives.info and they have pledged to withdraw any further financial contributions to organizations, such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, until those groups reverse their current policies against e-cigarettes.3

The petition, written by the Vapers Coalition4, quoted the named organizations' own statements about the dangers of tobacco smoking and pointed out how, according to published test results, electronic cigarettes are no more of a danger to smokers than FDA-approved smoking cessation products.

As word spreads, the petition numbers are growing and organizers hope to reach at least 10,000 signatures by September 1, 2010. They intend to hand-deliver a hard copy of the petition to each organization and are encouraging petitioners to send their own individually signed hard copy, as well.

Comments on the petition ranged from testimonials of the benefits of electronic cigarettes to angry accusations of financial interests winning out over public health. Many promised to get their friends and families to support boycotting the health organizations and others warned that removing electronic cigarettes from the market would have devastating consequences.

"I am a 1 1/2 year user of PV's (e-cigs) and have been tobacco free for over a year," wrote petitioner Brenda Wood. If a ban were to take effect, I know I would revert to tobacco, as NONE of the NRT's on the market worked for me, and some made me very, very ill."

Mark Watkinson made an appeal on behalf of his father writing, "My father is dying from his habit. If he doesn't switch to an E Cigarette he may be dead in as little as 2-5 years. Please don't ban this life saving device. Nothing can be worse health wise than the legal tobacco cigarette!"

Alluding to federal and state tobacco tax revenues and the multi-billion dollar smoking cessation industry, petitioner George Seder wrote, "Which conflict of interest are you going to side with? Smokers who want to stay healthy or special interests who depend financially on misery and death?"

Electronic cigarette users are adamant that they have finally found a way to painlessly replace tobacco smoking with a product that has been shown, through testing and real-life application, to be multitudes safer than smoking. Unlike tobacco cigarettes, petitioners say electronic cigarettes are worth fighting for.

Sources:

1. A Historical Timeline of Electronic Cigarettes,http://www.casaa.org/resources

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette

3. http://EcigsSaveLives.info

4. http://VapersCoalition.org

Up in Smoke: How Will Our Tobacco Policies of Today Be Viewed by Future Generations?

2010-05-03T20:02:00.000-07:00

In the history of the United States of America there have been more than a few public policies that leave today's generation incredulous.

We look back at the great issues our ancestors faced such as slavery, civil rights, Prohibition, Suffrage, the relocation and assimilation of Native Americans, discrimination, child labor and the wholesale destruction of our natural resources and wonder, "What the heck were they thinking?"

If you looked closely at any situation where a minority group was openly discriminated against and endangered, it usually can be explained with one word - greed. Behind every law or policy, someone stood to gain or lose financially.

Look at today's tobacco policies and cigarette smokers.

Here we have a product that the CDC states "is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes." 1

Yet, rather than remove the deadly product, government officials offered regulation. The tobacco industry was banned from advertising in most media outlets, from sponsoring high-profile sports and ordered to redesign packaging with visible health warnings in an attempt to "protect" consumers. Higher and higher taxes were imposed, with the dual intent of making the price of cigarettes less appealing and to finance the health costs associated with smoking. In spite of this, people not only continued to smoke, new smokers continued to start smoking every day.

Anti-tobacco advocates weren't satisfied with the government's efforts, so they formed health organizations intended to educate smokers and support their efforts to quit. This heightened awareness of the health risks (plus the discovery in the 1950's that smoking was linked to lung cancer) prompted an unprecedented number of smokers to try quitting, but the success rates were less than stellar. This stumped the health groups. People knew that smoking was bad for them, why didn't they just quit?

Researchers finally pinpointed nicotine as being the ingredient in cigarettes that made quitting so difficult. Pharmaceutical companies developed "nicotine replacement therapies" designed to temporarily give smokers the nicotine they craved while they attempted to quit. Smokers had to be convinced that nicotine wasn't the dangerous component of smoking - just the addictive one. A new industry was created around smoking cessation, however, the products only worked for a tiny number of smokers. Over 97% of smokers would either bounce back and forth between smoking and the smoking cessation products or simply give up and go back to smoking. Obviously, helping smokers wasn't working, so maybe guilting or punishing them into quitting would.

Along came reports about "second-hand" and "third-hand" smoke. Based on some questionable research, the health advocates announced that smokers were not just hurting themselves, but also hurting those around them - even from simply touching them after smoking. Suddenly, "anti-tobacco" groups became "anti- smoking" prohibitionists, intent on banning any form of smoking or nicotine use and the attempts to help smokers turned into attempts to de-socialize and de-normalize them. Additional taxes on cigarettes were called "sin tax" and smokers were the sinners.

No serious attempts were made to remove the root cause of all of this trouble - cigarettes. The tobacco companies still made their profits, because smokers still had nothing to help them quit successfully. Sure, more token changes were done to make a good showing to their constituents. They banned flavors that no one really bought anyhow while the most profitable flavor - menthol - remained on the market; cartoon characters and other advertising that supposedly influenced children (even though research showed that stress, peer behavior and smoking family members were the largest influence for new smokers) were censored; smoking in public places was banned and any new recreational products containing nicotine were protested and pulled from the market as a "gateway" to smoking. Nicotine, while shown to be relatively harmless absent the tobacco smoke, was simultaneously vilified in the form of any new "reduced harm" smokeless products while being promoted as an "FDA-approved" pharmaceutical treatment.

That's not to say that the earlier, genuine efforts of the government and health organizations didn't have any impact. In the 1950's, more than half of the population in the U.S. smoked cigarettes. 2 As of 2009, that number had been reduced to approximately 21%, but that was an INCREASE from 19.8% in 2007 and it has remained constant since. The CDC placed the blame on state governments putting little or nothing of their $203.5 billion in tobacco-related revenue towards smoking-cessation programs. One has to wonder where all of that money was going instead.3

Of course, by this time there were many more groups making profits from smokers than just Big Tobacco. Federal and state governments now had billions of dollars coming in from the "sin tax." Big Pharma now had a multi-billion dollar per year smoking cessation industry and was donating huge amounts to the anti-smoking groups, who along with the medical community happily peddled their smoking cessation products. Anti-smoking groups, while mostly not for profit, still employed thousands and paid their leaders and lobbyists handsomely. Suddenly, the livelihood of all of these organizations was inextricably tied to tobacco and to smokers continuing to smoke.

So, where did that leave the smokers? Well, they were left with half-hearted attempts to help them quit, costly and ineffective "treatments," life as a social outcast and the privilege paying higher and higher prices to expedite an early death.

Then the electronic cigarette arrived.

Developed by a Chinese inventor in 2003 after his father, a heavy smoker, died of cancer (or so the story goes) the electronic cigarette was already a worldwide, multi-million dollar industry by the time the first shipments hit U.S. shores. While the concept was nothing new, the enterprising Chinese were the first to put it all together in a simple yet brilliant device.

Manufacturers put a small amount of medical-grade nicotine into propylene glycol - which was already recognized as safe by the FDA and the EPA - added appealing flavors and then put the solution in to a cartridge. The user attached the cartridge to a small heating element, which was powered by a cigarette-shaped battery, then inhaled the vapor created by the heated nicotine solution. To complete the illusion, the Chinese cleverly added an LED that lights up when the user inhales from the device. They marketed them to committed smokers - those who had no intention of quitting - as a less hazardous alternative to tobacco cigarettes. Smokers got their (relatively safe) nicotine with the sensations of smoking and without the toxic levels of chemicals and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke.

Seems like win-win, right?

Governments should have been happy that smokers would no longer be overwhelming the health care system. Anti-smoking and healthcare groups should have been happy that smokers would no longer inhaling or exposing bystanders to 4,000 chemicals and 50+ human carcinogens. Big Tobacco should have been happy it could now extract the nicotine from their plants, make their own electronic cigarettes and sell consumers a low-risk, recreational product. Big Pharma had the opportunity to make their own electronic cigarettes, develop a step-down plan and sell consumers a highly effective smoking cessation program.

Smokers would have been happy to satisfy their desire to smoke, without the guilt, cost and health hazards associated with tobacco smoking. Smoking, no longer defined only as burning tobacco leaves, would have been able to step out of the penalty box and back into mainstream society; no longer a public health hazard and as socially acceptable as enjoying a glass of wine or a jolt of espresso. Future generations should have been able to look at their history books and see how humanity made one of the most significant advances for public health in decades.

Instead, history may record that greed once again won out over the public's best interest.

Incredibly, the FDA, numerous state governments and a plethora of health and anti-smoking groups came out in full force AGAINST electronic cigarettes. The results of testing by the FDA and several independent labs, which showed that electronic cigarettes "use the same nicotine, with about the same level of trace contaminants as FDA approved NRT products"4 were twisted or completely ignored. Instead the FDA dramatically announced that the devices "contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze" and left the public to assume that the levels found were dangerous to humans.5

The FDA used the publicity to justify its declaration that electronic cigarettes were "unapproved drug delivery devices" and would be blocked from the market until they were shown to meet stringent smoking cessation standards. Public health organizations, followed by state legislators (with a sharp prod from the former), used the FDA announcement as a spring board and called for the immediate removal of electronic cigarettes from the market until they received FDA approval.

The former smokers who now used electronic cigarettes and the current smokers who found out about the devices via the FDA press statement weren't buying the spin though. The number of smokers switching to electronic cigarettes and then becoming "e-cig evangelists" to other smokers continued to rise.

When angry and confused consumers called and emailed groups like the American Lung Association, providing positive testimony of their experience with electronic cigarettes and demanding to know why the groups opposed a product that could save so many lives, they were met with canned responses such as: "The FDA hasn't approved them as smoking cessation devices." "We don't know what's in them." "They found antifreeze and carcinogens in them." "Quitting is better."

All of these answers completely ignored the fact that there had been no reports of injury or illness attributed to electronic cigarettes since they were introduced 5 years earlier; several tests (including the FDA test) had shown that the health risks of electronic cigarettes were comparable to FDA-approved smoking cessation products and tens of thousands times less hazardous than tobacco cigarettes; that electronic cigarettes were intended to be a safer smoking replacement for committed smokers and not a treatment for nicotine addiction; and that anecdotal reports from users claimed that the product was a successful replacement for tobacco smoking and improving their health, unlike the FDA-approved smoking cessation products.

One's first instinct is to ask. "What were they thinking??" But if history is any indication, that question has already been answered. One just needs to "follow the money."

So, today we sit at crossroads. History is being made in public health. All we can do now is imagine how future generations will look back upon the players in tobacco policies today. Will they see them as innovative and forward-thinking public health advocates who embraced a life-saving device or will they be revealed as self-serving and corrupt special interest groups - willing to sacrifice the lives of their fellow citizens in order to make a few bucks?Only time will tell.

Sources:
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/osh.htm
2. Smoking Statistics, http://www.smokingstatistics.org/Smoking_Statistics_Since_1950.asp
3. U.S. News and World Report, http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/11/12/progress-in-stamping-out-smoking-has-stalled.html
4. American Association of Public Health Physicians, http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/2010/Petition/20100207FDAPetition2.pdf
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm173222.htm

8 Biggest Electronic Cigarette Myths

2010-04-26T10:22:00.000-07:00

There are many myths and misconceptions about electronic cigarettes. Let's separate fact from fiction.

Myth #1 - Electronic cigarettes are a threat to children/teens.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
Legislators and anti-smoking groups assume that children will be drawn to the “electronic gadgets,” the fruit/candy flavors and ease of access on the internet & mall kiosks.

Why it’s a wrong:
First, they aren’t easy to purchase on the internet. A credit card or bank account is required. So, unless the child steals a parent’s credit card and then hides the card statement later on, the risk of being discovered is high. The majority of kiosk vendors have already implemented a policy of forbidding sales to minors. The opportunity for minors to purchase electronic cigarettes at those kiosks is no better than purchasing tobacco cigarettes at a gas station – probably less.

Second, the least expensive electronic cigarette starter kits run between $35 - $50 (plus shipping) online and $90 - $150 at mall kiosks. This price point is considerable for the average adult, let alone a child. Children would be more likely to spend that money on music, clothes or video games than an electronic cigarette – especially when they can easily get a $7 pack of cigarettes at the corner store or from friends. Electronic cigarettes also require the additional purchases of accessories and replacement parts. A single battery costs over $10. Heating elements, which require frequent replacement, cost over $8 each.

Third, anecdotal accounts indicate that children/teens view electronic cigarettes as a way for adults to quit smoking. They lack the “danger factor,” which reduces appeal. Additionally, surveys of electronic cigarette owners show that the average consumer is overwhelmingly between 30-50 years old and a smoker(1), indicating that even young adults do not find them particularly appealing.

Myth #2 - Sweet flavors and flashy packaging are intended to specifically attract young people.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
The assumption by critics that the slick advertisements and fruity flavors only appeal to children and their lack of knowledge of the target consumer and the intended purpose of the product.

Why it’s wrong:
These products are not intended to be a treatment for nicotine addiction. They are intended to be a way for current smokers to “smoke” without the dangerous toxins and carcinogens. Retailers need to differentiate themselves from stop-smoking aids, to convince long-time smokers that the electronic cigarette is just as appealing as the tobacco cigarette they currently use.

Just as with marketing cars, televisions, cell phones, alcohol and other adult products, advertisers attempt to make the devices appeal to adults with a “coolness factor.” Studies show that "smokers are more likely than the general population to be risk-taking, extroverted, defiant, and impulsive"(7) - very similar to teen demographics - so the misconception is understandable, but misguided. Often overlooked by critics in these ads are the claims about the ability to “smoke anywhere” and have a safer/healthier option to smoking – a clear indication that they are targeting current smokers and smokers concerned about their health and not new/young smokers.

Regarding sweet flavors, the tobacco-flavored liquid does not have a pleasant taste for many smokers, as it is difficult to replicate the tobacco smoke taste. Adults, who make up the majority of electronic cigarette consumers, specifically requested alternative flavors that would work well with the liquid base – which were mostly sweeter fruit and candy flavors. About 50% of adult electronic cigarette owners polled (over the age of 26)(1) report that they primarily use these non-tobacco flavors and attribute them with the ability to keep them from returning to tobacco cigarettes. They also testify that the sweeter flavors make tobacco cigarettes taste particularly foul and further reduce their chances of returning to smoking cigarettes.

Myth #3 - Electronic Cigarettes all contain anti-freeze.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
In 2009, the FDA released a press statement claiming that they tested electronic cigarettes and found diethylene glycol, an ingredient in anti freeze.(2)

Why it’s wrong:
Independent labs extensively tested other electronic cigarettes and found no evidence of diethylene glycol, the toxic component of anti-freeze claimed to have been found in the brands the FDA tested.(3)

To further the confusion, electronic cigarette liquid is made of propylene glycol, an ingredient recognized as safe for human consumption by the FDA. While propylene glycol is sometimes used in anti-freeze, it is an additive intended to make it LESS harmful if accidentally swallowed.

The FDA tested just 18 cartridges, from only two companies. Out of those 18, just one tested positive for “about 1% diethylene glycol.”(4) Because so many other tests failed to find diethylene glycol, many experts conclude that the single sample may have been contaminated in some other way. By no means is it considered a standard ingredient in electronic cigarettes.

If electronic cigarettes did contain anti-freeze, there would be news reports about the thousands of electronic cigarette owners suffering from diethylene glycol poisoning and that is not the case. To date, after five years on the market worldwide, there have been no such reports.

Myth #4 - Electronic cigarettes are just as deadly and carcinogenic as tobacco cigarettes.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
The FDA stated they found trace amounts of carcinogens in the nicotine cartridges and the media and health organizations used that statement to claim that electronic cigarettes are just as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes.(2)

Why it’s wrong:
The FDA found trace amounts of “tobacco-specific nitrosamines” in the samples they tested, which can cause cancer under certain conditions and in sufficient amounts.(4) The FDA allows certain levels of nitrosamines in consumable products. For example, tests show that other nicotine products, such as nicotine gum and nicotine patches, also contain the same tobacco-specific nitrosamines. The FDA did not release any information on the levels they found, however, the scientific definition of “trace amount” means amounts that are “detectable,” but too small to even accurately measure.

An independent study by Dr. Murray Laugesen showed that, on average, the electronic cigarette contained 8.18ng nitrosamines per 1g of liquid. 8 ng in 1g = eight parts per trillion, an extremely tiny amount. By comparision, nicotine gum tested at 2ng, the nicotine patch tested at 8ng and Marlborough cigarettes tested at a staggering 11,190ng. That translates to electronic cigarettes containing 1,200 times LESS of these cancer-causing nitrosamines than tobacco cigarettes and about the same as the FDA-approved nicotine patch.(3)

Myth #5 - Electronic cigarettes may be more addictive than regular cigarettes.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
The infamous FDA testing showed that the levels of nicotine found in the cartridges varied from the advertised amount. Also, traces of nicotine were found in cartridges labeled as “no nicotine.” Critics claim that means electronic cigarette users may be inhaling too much nicotine and causing them to become even more addicted.

Why it’s wrong:
Two independent tests, the one by Dr. Laugesen and one by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg at Virginia Commonwealth University(5), showed that electronic cigarette vapor does not deliver nicotine as “efficiently” as tobacco smoke and actually delivers nicotine in lower amounts than tobacco smoke.
Additionally, smokers tend to “self-regulate” their intake, as seen by how many cigarettes a smoker uses in a day. When the need for nicotine is met, the smoker – or in this case, the electronic cigarette user – no longer has a craving and ceases consumption. The fundamental behavior of nicotine addiction just doesn’t support the claims of increasing the addiction in that manner.

Myth #6 – Second-hand “vapor” is a threat to bystanders.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
Anti-smoking groups claim the toxins and carcinogens in electronic cigarettes (as well as addictive nicotine) can be accidentally inhaled by bystanders, just like second-hand tobacco smoke.

Why it’s wrong:
As shown previously, electronic cigarettes already contain a tiny, barely detectable fraction of the carcinogens found in tobacco cigarettes. They also have been shown not to contain any of the toxins in the amounts found in tobacco cigarettes and that they deliver very little nicotine in the vapor. So, given that the vapor already proves little, if any, danger to the actual user, any danger to bystanders by the exhaled vapor would be negligible.

Additionally, tobacco cigarettes create “side stream smoke,” which is the smoke that comes directly from the end of a lit cigarette and the smoke lingers in the air and travels a fair distance from the smoker.

Electronic cigarette vapor does not behave in the same manner as tobacco smoke. There is no vapor produced from the device, until the user activates it by inhaling, so no “side stream vapor” is created and the vapor dissipates very quickly. In the event that a bystander would pass through the vapor, since it doesn’t contain the irritating toxins of tobacco smoke, it would likely be barely detectable beyond the faint scent of the flavor and only for a fleeting moment.

Myth #7 - Electronic cigarettes are a “gateway” to tobacco smoking.

FALSE.

Where is comes from:
Critics theorize that more non-smokers will be willing to try electronic cigarettes, due to their attractive flavors and attractive styling.

Why it’s wrong:
People start smoking for different reasons. Studies show that children and young adults are more influenced by their peers, parents and stress levels than advertizing or flavors.(6) The most popular tobacco flavors among youth are Camel, Marlborough and Newport – fruit and candy flavors only made up 2% of sales when they were legal – and rarely do people cite the flavor as a reason they started smoking.

Considering that the electronic cigarette is perceived as a health concession for adults, the high start-up costs and the easy accessibility of tobacco cigarettes, electronic cigarettes are unlikely to appeal to new smokers in significant numbers.

Additionally, given the fact that current users claim that electronic cigarettes make tobacco smoke taste considerably foul, in the unlikely event that a new smoker chooses electronic cigarettes over tobacco cigarettes, the chance they will find tobacco smoking appealing is even less.

Taking into account that electronic cigarettes have been shown to be both less toxic and less carcinogenic than tobacco cigarettes, if new smokers actually do choose electronic cigarettes over tobacco cigarettes, it would actually benefit their health and safety and that of those around them.

Myth #8 - If electronic cigarettes were no longer available for smokers, those smokers would simply quit smoking or use traditional stop-smoking aids.

FALSE.

Where it comes from:
Wishful thinking.

Why it's wrong:
According to the 998 poll participants, only 18% responded that they would use traditional NRTs or attempt to quit cold turkey. Nearly 20% said they would switch to other tobacco alternatives, such as snus or snuff; and a whopping 61% indicated they would most likely resume smoking cigarettes.(1)

Sources:
1. Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives, Electronic Cigarette User Poll, CASAA.org
2. US Food & Drug Administration, FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes, FDA.gov
3. Health New Zealand, Dr. Murray Laugesen, Safety report on the Ruyan e-cigarette Cartridge and inhaled Aerosol, HealthNZ.co.na
4. US Food & Drug Administration, Final Report on FDA Analyses, FDA.gov
5. Virginia Commonwealth University, Dr. Thomas Eissenberg, Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' "Electronic cigarettes" fail to deliver nicotine , News.vcu.edu
6. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Differentiating Stages of Smoking Intensity Among Adolescents: Stage-Specific Psychological and Social Influences, APA.org
7. Dr. Michael Rabinoff, "Ending the Tobacco Holocaust, How Big Tobacco affects our health, pocketbook and political freedom, and what we can do about it." Elite Books, Copyright 2006

CASAA’s mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives. CASAA is a volunteer, non-profit consumer organization and receives no compensation from any tobacco, pharmaceutical or electronic cigarette companies.

American Lung Association vs Electronic Cigarettes

2010-04-13T19:40:00.000-07:00

Organization's Efforts to Ban Devices Will Do More Harm Than Good

The American Lung Association has come out in full force by sending lobbyists to various state legislators to argue against the electronic cigarette.1 While on the surface this seems like a reasonable effort, a lack of understanding the motivations of the electronic cigarette user has placed the ALA squarely on the wrong side of the fight for public health.

A source at the ALA, an organization which claims to be dedicated to "save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease," acknowledged in response to a recent email inquiry that

yes there are fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm them and have no intention of quitting, just switching.

So, while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or gum.2

Research has also shown that many of the of smokers who successfully quit using nicotine gum never actually "wean down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it." The success rate of NRTs (nicotine replacement therapy) has dropped to 7.2%, resulting in chronic use of the products.3 Furthermore, according to a 2004 report, over 36% of gum users continue to use the products as a smoking replacement indefinitely.4 So nicotine itself is not what is killing people. The ALA's insistence on complete nicotine abstinence is admirable yet unrealistic and their claims about the dangers of nicotine, as compared to smoking, are clearly misleading.

The ALA email also acknowledged a fact already known to many e-cigarette insiders - that the majority of smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes had no intention of quitting smoking. So, why remove the only safer option available to those who would otherwise smoke the obviously deadlier tobacco cigarettes?

The only explanation is that the American Lung Association assumes that every smoker and electronic cigarette user wants to quit smoking and uses the devices as an NRT. That is an erroneous and very dangerous assumption.

In surveys of electronic cigarette owners conducted by CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), respondents overwhelmingly stated that they did not use electronic cigarettes to quit smoking and would go back to smoking if denied access to electronic cigarettes.

An internet questionnaire of a self-selected sample of 783 daily users of electronic cigarettes asked, "Why did you start vaping?" ("Vaping" is a term for the vapor inhaled vs. smoke.) A staggering 92% chose to switch for reasons other than quitting smoking i.e. saving money or reducing the risks associated with smoking. Less than 8% stated they were using e-cigarettes to quit smoking.5

So, the ALA wishes to remove the safer alternative used by several hundred thousand electronic cigarettes users and force them back to smoking tobacco cigarettes, in order to "protect" the less than 8% who would otherwise be using an NRT?

Additionally, the ALA's belief that e-cigarette users will switch to traditional NRTs or quit altogether is disproved in yet another e-cigarette user questionnaire conducted by CASAA. This survey explored the habits and motivations of almost 1,000 electronic cigarette users. The poll indicates that, not only is the typical e-cigarette user a former smoker over the age of 26, but that they have overwhelmingly cut back or quit the use of tobacco cigarettes and have noticed improved health effects - indicating they provide the "improved lung health" the ALA is seeking to promote. Most importantly, the results indisputably contradict the assertion that electronic cigarette users will quit using tobacco should the devices be removed from the market. Over 80% of the respondents indicated they would most likely return to smoking tobacco cigarettes or use another smokeless tobacco alternative, such as snus. Less than 20% stated they would attempt to quit nicotine use altogether. 6

While the nicotine abstinence approach may be the ideal, it simply does not reflect the reality that 80% of smokers do not even wish to quit in the immediate future. Wouldn't it make sense to encourage those smokers to switch to a less harmful alternative in the meantime?

In their single-minded drive to ban e-cigarettes, focusing solely on the small minority of electronic cigarette users who use the devices to quit nicotine, the ALA will do more harm than good to the majority of e-cigarette users who will inevitably return to smoking the more toxic tobacco cigarettes.

The American Lung Association needs to re-read their own mission statement and determine if their opposition to electronic cigarettes would be saving lives - their stated goal - or putting those lives right back into harm's way.

Sources:

1. Michelle Manchir, State Hopes to Snuff Out E-cigarette Sales, ChicagoTribune.com

2. American Heart Association, Nicotine Substitutes/Nicotine Replacement Therapy, AmericanHeart.org

3. Etter JF, Stapleton JA., Nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: a meta-analysis., ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

4. Petra Bartosiewicz., A Quitter's Delima: Hooked on the Cure, NYTimes.com

5. CASAA, Poll of Electronic Cigarette Users: Why Did You Start Vaping?, CASAA.org

6. CASAA, Ecig User Poll Graphic, CASAA.org

Smokefree Wisconsin Continues Endangering Smokers

2010-01-24T09:20:00.001-08:00

It seems that Smokefree Wisconsin has finally woken up and realized that electronic cigarettes (personal vaporizers) are not a plot by Big Tobacco to hook kids on nicotine, yet they continue their campaign of lies and misinformation about the devices.

In a post dated 1/20/10, they comment on the recent ruling in the case of Smoking Everywhere vs. FDA:

A statement from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said, "In ruling today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may not regulate electronic cigarettes as drugs or medical devices, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon has ignored decades of precedent and put America's consumers at unnecessary risk."

This statement couldn't be more true. Electronic cigarettes are not being marketed as tobacco products they are being marketed as cessation devices or as some sort of healthier alternative to smoking.

Not only have they done a complete 180 on electronic cigarettes being a Big Tobacco product, now they claim e-cigs are drug devices, make cessation claims and a danger to consumers.

This statement couldn't be any LESS true and puts the health of millions of ex-smokers using the devices at risk.

What is Smokefree Wisconsin's true goal here? To improve the health of Wisconsin residents by getting smokers to quit smoking or to eliminate all forms of nicotine?

If Smokefree Wisconsin truly cared about consumers, ie. smokers, they would worry first about reducing smokers' exposure to the true danger of nicotine addiction - SMOKE - and then worry about nicotine addiction.

Judge Leon ruled that the electronic cigarette companies have absolutely NOT been marketing the product as cessation devices, although many consumers of the product have reported that, while they still consume nicotine, they have ceased smoking tobacco to do so. Leon also rebuked the FDA for it's actions, stating that treating a reduced harm product as a drug product is absurd:

To treat as a drug any tobacco product that merely claims to be a healthier alternative would effectively nullify the provisions relating to modified risk tobacco products, which represent Congress’s implicit acknowledgment that those products were outside of FDA’s jurisdiction prior to the Tobacco Act. Moreover, it would create the absurd result that certain tobacco products-like...electronic cigarettes-would be exposed to the more onerous regulatory burdens for drugs and devices merely because they claim to be healthier alternatives to traditional tobacco products.

Judge Leon also refused to fall for the FDA's and other organizations' claim that electronic cigarettes are a danger to consumers:

Given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, I am not convinced that the threat to the public interest in general or to third parties in particular is as great as FDA suggests. Together, both Smoking Everywhere and NJOY have already sold hundreds of thousands of electronic cigarettes, yet FDA cites no evidence that those electronic cigarettes have endangered anyone. Nor has FDA cited any evidence that electronic cigarettes are any more an immediate threat to public health.

Now, that is a statement that couldn't be more true.

CASAA Applauds Electronic Cigarette Ruling

2010-01-19T14:53:00.001-08:00

by Krisitn Noll-Marsh

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) applauded the recent ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon in the case of Smoking Everywhere v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The group advocates providing consumers with affordable and effective alternatives to tobacco smoking, including electronic cigarettes.

Leon granted the injunction sought by the plaintiffs, Smoking Everywhere and NJOY (d.b.a. Soterra), to release shipments of electronic cigarettes that had been seized by FDA as "unapproved drug-delivery devices." The injunction prohibits FDA from seizing future shipments as well. (1)

"Judge Leon's decision that reduced risk tobacco products, such as electronic cigarettes, are not drug delivery devices and should not be placed under FDA jurisdiction as such is a step in the right direction," stated CASAA president Michal Douglas. "The process of approving new drugs is prohibitive and would leave millions of electronic cigarette users at risk."

E-cigarettes can be used as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes. The devices use a battery and atomizer to vaporize a small amount of liquid in a cartridge that contains propylene glycol--the chemical used to create artificial fog in theatre productions and dance clubs—as well as water, flavoring, and a small amount of nicotine. As many as 80% of regular users of the product are now using it in place of all the tobacco cigarettes they formerly smoked.

"Judge Leon's ruling is a step forward in public health, despite what some anti-smoking organizations may claim. Getting thousands of smokers to stop smoking is a good thing, even if it's with a method that currently only common sense can say is safer," said Dr. Theresa Whitt, CASAA's Medical Director.

Tobacco cigarettes deliver nicotine via the process of combustion, which produces smoke that contains tar, particles of tobacco and paper ash, carbon monoxide, heavy metals, hundreds of carcinogens, and thousands of toxins. "In the absence of quitting," continued Dr. Whitt, "smokers must have alternatives available to them, to reduce their exposure to the dangers of tobacco smoke."

Many organizations have taken a position that smokers must achieve smoking cessation only through complete nicotine abstinence. This position has been characterized as a "quit or die" mentality.

Public health groups such as the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) have called for a Tobacco Harm Reduction approach which steers smokers toward less-harmful sources of nicotine such as smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes, as well as nicotine replacement products in higher more-satisfying dosages. (2)

"When anti-tobacco groups fail to acknowledge the viability of reduced harm alternatives, disregarding the fact that 93% of smokers fail at repeated attempts to quit, they ultimately fail to protect public health," stated Whitt.

"Anti-smoking activists and the FDA should be encouraging smokers to make the switch to reduced harm products such as electronic cigarettes, not making it harder for them."

Sources:
1. Smoking Everywhere vs. FDA, http://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54, USCourts.gov

2. American Association of Public Health Physicians, http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/2009/TobaccBill.htm, AAPHP.org

Electronic Cigarette Organization Sponsors Auction for Research

2009-12-29T12:14:00.000-08:00

The National Vapers Club is sponsoring an auction of high-end, custom electronic cigarette models and supplies and holding a "vape-a-thon" in order to raise funds to finance research on the safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes.

"Some of the best modders in our community have donated some really special and unique mods and some of the suppliers have gone out of their way to donate some really sought after items as well!" said Spikey Babian, president of the National Vapers Club.

"Every penny from this auction goes directly to vaping research. It will be given to Vapers International Inc., which is a non-profit group doing research on the safety and efficacy of vaping."

"We will also take additional donations through vapersclub@aol.com by PayPal," added Babaian.

Electronic cigarettes first appeared in the U.S. market in early 2007, marketed as a "smoking alternative." However, the FDA has recently ruled that the devices are actually "drug delivery devices," fall under their regulation and retailers are making unproven claims that electronic cigarettes are smoking cessation devices. Their claim of jurisdiction has been challenged in federal court by two electroinic cigarette distributors and is now awaiting the judge's decision. (1)

In May 2009, the FDA did preliminary testing of eighteen electronic cigarette cartridges and announced finding trace carcinogens in the samples and less than 1% diethylene glycol in one cartridge and warned consumers to not use the devices. (2)

A study funded by Ruyan, an electronic cigarette manufacturer, was done in 2008 by Health New Zealand, an independent research company. The test results showed that the liquid and vapor was indeed "100 to 1,000 times safer" than tobacco cigarettes and contained acceptable levels of nitrosamines - no more than nictoine gum or patches. (3)

In spite of these findings and the anecdotal evidence to the contrary, anti-smoking groups and legislators have declared the electronic cigarettes as unsafe and also a danger to bystanders, in the form of "second-hand vapor.

"Vapers International Inc. is a non-profit organization formed in September of 2009. According to it's web site, it was formed "by members of the vaping community as a means of gathering resources, funds and information to complete clinical research studies on nicotine vaporizers and electronic cigarettes."

"Determining whether or not vaping is safe is of utmost importance to the consumers utilizing these devices. Vapers International has established a mission to analyze and determine the components of the vapor emitted from the device during use and determine the level of risk encountered by the users of the device and bystanders of the user." (4)

Information about the online auction, which is scheduled to run January 1, 2010 through February 7, 2010, may be found at http://vapersclub.com/modauction.html.

Sources:
1. Smoking Everywhere vs. FDA, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14775111/Smoking-Everywhere-Verified-Complaint?secret_password=1ssh8mjyzy1urbwyeygd, Scribd.com

2. Food and Drug Adminstration, http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm173222.htm, FDA.gov

3. Health New Zealand, http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecigarette.htm, Healthnz.co.nz

4. Vapers International Inc., http://vapersinternational.org/, VapersInternational.org

Smoke Free Wisconsin wins "Lie of the Year" award

2009-12-28T12:07:00.000-08:00

Lie of the Year Award Winner

This year's Lie of the Year Award is presented to Smoke Free Wisconsin for its public communication which informed readers that electronic cigarettes are a Big Tobacco ploy to hook kids.

On March 25, 2009, the anti-smoking organization SmokeFree Wisconsin accused tobacco companies of using electronic cigarettes as a ploy to hook youths on these products. The group asserted that these products are being marketed to kids by virtue of their being produced in fruit flavors. For these reasons, SmokeFree Wisconsin joined a number of other health groups in supporting efforts to remove electronic cigarettes from the market. MORE

Legislators Jump On Elctronic Cigarette "Ban" Wagon

2009-12-11T11:52:00.000-08:00

By Kristin Noll-Marsh

In a move that defies logic and reason, legislators and anti-smoking groups all over the country are attempting to modify the definition of "smoking," in public smoking bans, to include electronic cigarettes.

Bills just passed by New Jersey legislators (S-3053/S-3054), define electronic cigarettes as the same as tobacco cigarettes and prohibit use of the devices in indoor public places and workplaces, based largely on recent findings by the FDA:

"Electronic smoking devices have not been approved as to safety and efficacy by the federal Food and Drug Administration, and their use may pose a health risk to persons exposed to their smoke or vapor because of a known irritant contained therein and other substances that may, upon evaluation by that agency, be identified as potentially toxic to those inhaling the smoke or vapor," the bill's authors ascertained. (1)

In an email to the senators, the executive director of anti-tobacco group Smokefree Pennsylvania, William T. Godshall, urged the New Jersey lawmakers to vote down S-3053, while supporting proposed bill S-3054.

"To improve public health, Smokefree Pennsylvania urges you to SUPPORT [S-3054] (to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors under 19) and to REJECT [S-3053] (to ban adult use of electronic cigarettes in ALL indoor workplaces)," Godshall said.

"Unfortunately for public health and common sense, [S-3053] inaccurately redefines "smoking" as including the use of smokefree e-cigarettes in order to ban the use of these lifesaving products in all workplaces in NJ (including in the privacy of one's office, work station, etc.). Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated smokefree workplace laws for more than 20 years (because tobacco smoke pollution poses a health hazard to people and property), we urge you to REJECT [S-3053] because it improperly defines the usage of smokefree products as "smoking", unfairly discriminates against e-cigarette users who have recently quit smoking, would force e-cigarette users outside into smoking areas to obtain smokefree nicotine, and would discourage hundreds of thousands of smokers from quitting and/or reducing cigarette consumption by switching to e-cigarettes."

"Proponents of [S-3053] have grossly and intentionally misrepresented the health risks of e-cigarettes in order to scare legislators into voting for this unwarranted legislation that threatens (instead of improves) public health. Smokers who have recently quit and/or are trying to quit need support, not harassment and ostracism," Godshall argued. (2)

Although many electronic cigarette models look similar to tobacco cigarettes and produce a vapor that looks similar to tobacco smoke, outward appearances are deceiving. Unlike tobacco cigarettes, the devices do not contain tobacco, burn any material nor produce side-stream smoke. Electronic cigarettes utilize a small heating element, which warms a flavored nicotine (or non-nicotine) and propylene glycol solution into a fog or vapor. The device does not produce side-stream vapor, because it only creates the vapor when the user inhales through it. The vapor, unlike tobacco smoke, does not linger and produces no unpleasant odor, nor irritation, for most bystanders.

Dr. Michael Siegel, a respected physician with 20 years of tobacco control research, stated in a March 2009 post on his blog, The Rest of the Story:Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary, "It strikes me that there is a tremendous abstinence-only mindset in tobacco control that isn't capable of even entertaining the possibility that harm could be reduced by a product that is called a cigarette. The very fact that the product is in the form of a cigarette is simply intolerable to many tobacco control advocates. It is not truly the health of smokers that is of concern; it is the act of smoking that is bothersome and unacceptable. So even if that smoking were to save thousands of lives, it is not a viable option. Better that people should use the traditional products and die [than] switch to a product which has not been fully studied but which is probably much safer." (3)

Health New Zealand, an independent research and consultancy company owned by Dr. Murray Laugesen, a respected anti-smoking advocate and New Zealand's most experienced researcher on smoking policy and cigarettes, tested the Ruyan brand of electronic cigarettes andAdvertisement concluded that there was no danger to bystanders from the exhaled vapor:

"Second hand mist from an e-cigarette is not smoke at all, and does not contain any substance known to cause death, short or long term, in the quantities found. It becomes invisible within a few seconds, and is not detectable by smell."

"The e-cigarette does not create side-stream smoke."

"Exhaled breath after e-smoking contains even less nicotine per puff, as much of the nicotine inhaled is absorbed. Similarly, propylene glycol is largely absorbed and little is exhaled," Dr. Laugesen's report revealed. (4)

Yet, this comprehensive report is largely ignored by those wishing to define electronic cigarette vapor to be as dangerous as tobacco smoke. Instead, the bill's authors, state Senators Robert M. Gordon and Joseph F. Vitale, point to the statements made by the FDA, which were based on the limited testing the agency did on two brands of liquid; however, the FDA report did not include any findings on the composition of the actual vapor when exhaled. The testing methods and report were criticized by numerous members of the medical and scientific community - and even some anti-smoking advocates - as incomplete and inconclusive. (5)

Despite the warnings by the FDA and condemnation by groups such as the American Lung Association, electronic cigarettes are currently being used by hundreds of thousands of consumers worldwide and the number is growing each day.

"I did my research," said John Opager, an electronic cigarette owner in Chicago, IL. "I found that, though one tested sample by the FDA contained small amounts [less than 1%] of DEG [diethylene glycol], it was a statistical anomaly. The FDA's comment that e-liquid contains nitrosamines actually made me laugh, as most manufactured products containing nicotine have nitrosamines, as the nicotine is extracted from tobacco. That would include traditional NRTs [Nicotine Replacement Therapy, such as nicotine gum] which I believe the FDA doesn't have a problem with."

Many electronic cigarette users are concerned that if the proposed ban in New Jersey is passed, they will be followed by other state legislators and are concerned about how this will impact their future health.

"I feel that legislators forcing me back outside to use my [electronic cigarette] next to tobacco smokers will put my health at risk," stated a concerned Dayna Streeting, of Sheboygan, WI. "Knowing how dangerous second hand smoke is, I don't want to be around it anymore! I quit for a reason and use an electronic cigarette for a reason - to save my health."

"They saved my life," Streeting continued, "and I am extremely thankful. My husband is also happy that I'm no longer risking his health by using tobacco cigarettes around him. My doctor even agrees that it's a good idea, knowing how dangerous tobacco is. Anyone who wants to ban electronic cigarettes, because of safety reasons, needs to take another look at the tobacco that is still on the market."

Brad Preston, an electronic cigarette convert from Apple Valley, MN, said he would also like to see more evidence, before any further legislation takes place.

"Unless there is conclusive evidence that second-hand electronic cigarette vapor is harmful," Preston commented, "I think that every establishment should be allowed to decide independently whether or not to allow its use, or to designate specific areas for its use. A bar, adult restaurant, business or place of employment might condone the use of electronic cigarettes, while perhaps a family restaurant may not care to. Considering that propylene glycol has been used as an air disinfectant in hospitals, I believe it is highly unlikely that second-hand electronic cigarette vapor is harmful in any measurable way."

Thaddeus Marney, who is a founding board member of CASAA (The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), had another concern. "I would like to know how it is that the government agency [the FDA] tasked with preserving public health allows television commercials for a drug that has known lethal side effects [Chantix], while attempting to BAN a product that has not been linked to any serious side effects when used as intended?" Marney asked.

Dr. Siegel also questioned the true motivations of many electronic cigarette opponents.

"Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced that he wants the FDA to immediately take electronic cigarettes -- which deliver essentially pure nicotine (with no tar or other tobacco constituents) -- off the market. At the same time, he is a supporter of legislation that would provide special protection to actual tobacco-containing cigarettes and ensure that this most toxic variety of cigarettes always remains on the market and continues to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year," Siegel stated in a March 2009 blog post.

"What Senator Lautenberg and the health groups are trying to do is ban a much less harmful type of cigarette but to give an official government seal of approval to the much more toxic one that we know is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. The logic of these actions completely escapes me. Or at least the logic did escape me until The Ashtray Blog pointed out that Senator Lautenberg is the recipient of more than $128,000 from pharmaceutical companies (in 2008 alone)," Siegel continued.

"The only real threat that electronic cigarettes pose is not to the public's health, but to the profits of the pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture competing products (nicotine replacement therapy). If lots of smokers turn to electronic cigarettes, rather than pharmaceuticals, in order to try to quit smoking, then the pharmaceutical companies stand to lose lots of money. So perhaps it is not surprising that Senator Lautenberg is standing up to protect the financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies over the interests of the public's health." (6)

Suddenly, the logic and reason behind the proposed bans becomes quite clear to electronic cigarette owners.

Sources:
1. Senator ROBERT M. GORDON,District 38 (Bergen), Senator JOSEPH F. VITALE, District 19 (Middlesex) , SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE, Nos. 3053 and 3054 , njleg.state.nj.us

2. Bill Godshall, Smokefree Pennsylvania, Godshall email

3. Dr. Michael Siegel, Absurdity Gone Wild: Health Canada Asks Smokers Not to Use E-Cigarettes Because of Safety Concerns, But Not to Refrain from the Known Toxic Ones, TobaccoAnalysis.blogspot.com

4. Dr. Murray Laugesen, Health new Zealand, E-cigarettes: harmless inhaled or exhaled, No second hand smoke, HealthNZ.co.nz

5. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., Exponent Health Sciences, Technical Review and Analysis of FDA Report: "Evaluation of e-cigarettes", Exponent.com

6. Dr. Michael Siegel, Senator and Anti-Smoking Groups Want to Ban Less Harmful E-Cigarettes and Protect the Most Toxic Ones, TobaccoAnalysis.blogspot.com

Smoke Free Wisconsin Opposes Smoke Free Electronic Cigarettes

2009-11-11T14:42:00.000-08:00

In a recent post to it's blog, USA Today - Our Opinion On Public Health, Smoke Free Wisconsin continues it's irrational opposition to electronic cigarettes.

If their goal was truly "Preserving the right to live and breathe tobacco free" then this opposition makes absolutely no sense. Electronic cigarettes ARE tobacco free. What they really seem to object to is NICOTINE.

They post the following points:

When the FDA randomly tested the nicotine cartridges, it discovered carcinogens and a toxic chemical found in anti-freeze. Still, the most worrisome ingredient is nicotine itself. The FDA strictly regulates it in patches, gum and other smoking-cessation products, and it has banned nicotine lollipops and water. E-cigarettes deserve to be treated like other nicotine-delivery devices.

It has been shown in a few studies that the nicotine delivered by tobacco cigarettes is much higher than electronic cigarettes. No one seems concerned about the amount of nicotine in tobacco cigarettes - even though it has been reported that the tobacco companies are even using free base nicotine for greater strength. Electronic cigarettes use pharmacy-grade nicotine in clearly disclosed amounts. Even if the nicotine is higher than the extremely ineffective nicotine devices they regulate, it's still better than smoking tobacco cigarettes.

What is conveniently forgotten and never reported is what the FDA did NOT find in electronic cigarettes - no tar, carbon monoxide, ammonia, arsenic and hundreds, if not thousands, of other toxins found in tobacco cigarettes and second hand smoke. Why does Smoke Free Wisconsin refuse to acknowledge this?

E-cigarettes come in flavors — from traditional menthol to chocolate and
strawberry — that might lure curious youngsters and prompt them to move on to
the real thing. Distributors say their product is for adults only, but who's to
stop young people from buying it? Only a few locales have banned sales to
minors.

This argument simply does not hold water. Aside from the fact that the greater majority of retailers refuse to sell the devices to those under the age of 18, there is no indicationthat children even have the slightest interest in them - even with the attractive flavors. On the contrary, anecdotal evidence shows that teens feel it isn't worth the high cost, nor is it "cool."

Despite protests from the Electronic Cigarette Association that its members
don't make claims about helping smokers quit, plenty of sellers make far
more outrageous health claims. In recent weeks, one marketer
claimed e-cigarettes reduce the risk of heart disease and touted an endorsement
by a physician-and-nurses group. Another website, which says it reviews
e-cigarettes, went them one better: It claims, based on a 1942 study, that an
ingredient in e-cigarettes could prevent flu and other respiratory diseases.

While it may seem reasonable to disregard the claims from manufacturers, but what about the actual owners? Why do non-smoking advocates continuously ignore the experiences of the millions of people who have used these devices to quit smoking and report no adverse health effects? On the contrary, they report improved health and positive doctor's reports.

"The most important point that article makes is this, "All the public has to go on now is the word of the product's marketers. Before consumers inhale something that gives them "vapes" of highly addictive nicotine, they might want an independent authority testing the product to see what's in it." If the e-cig makers are anything like their Big Tobacco counterparts, truth in advertising is bent at the expensive of health and in the favor of profits. "

Again, the FDA did a study, so did Health New Zealand. Electronic cigarettes were found to be hundred's of times LESS toxic and contain hundred's of times LESS carcinogens than tobacco cigarettes.

Smoke Free Wisconsin did not print the follow up letter's to the USA Today editor - nor the hundreds of comments by electronic cigarette users. One letter was from a doctor endorsing their use and another was from an owner that made an excellent point:

"If the majority of users were substituting e-cigarettes for FDA-approved smoking cessation products, perhaps e-cigarettes would deserve to be treated like other nicotine-delivery devices. But the nicotine-delivery devices that e-cigarette users have given up are tobacco cigarettes. They are not using e-cigarettes because of any outrageous health claims on the part of retailers. They are using them because, unlike the FDA-approved smoking cessation products, these work. "

When will Smoke Free Wisconsin realize how wrong they are? By opposing electronic cigarettes, they are signing a death warrent for millions using them to stay away from tobacco cigarettes. Read the comments by the electronic cigarette users on these articles and decide for yourself.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Your Joye510

2009-10-16T19:23:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the world of personal vaporizers! The Joye510 is one of the most popular models currently on the market.

Now that you have your new device, you may have heard that there is a bit of a learning curve. This guide is meant to answer the most common questions about the use and maintenance of the 510 model.
.........................................
Guide Index:
What to Order
--Starter Kit
--E-Liquid/Nicotine
Getting Started
510 Components
--Battery
----Automatic
----Manual
----USB Pass-through
--Atomizer
----Flooding
----Cleaning
----Burnt/Chemical/Harsh Taste
--Cartridge/Mouthpiece
----Loose Fitting Cartridge
--Filler
----Filler Modifications
----Dripping
----Dipping
--Chargers--E-Liquid
........................................

What to Order
The following list is what is most commonly advised by experienced owners for a basic starter kit:
2-4 Batteries
2-4 Atomizers
USB or AC Charger
Personal Charging Case
USB Pass-through
Empty Cartridges
Extra FillerTweezers (Pointed tip)

e-Liquid Nicotine Strength Recommendations:
Occasional Smoker: Zero to Low
Up to 1 pack/day: Low to Medium
Up to 2 packs/day: Medium to High
Over 2 packs/day: High to Extra High

Getting Started
When you first get your device, you will want to set it up properly for the best experience.

First, fully charge your batteries. Place them in the charger until the light turns green. Some recommend to charge for a minimum of 4 hours, regardless of the green light.

Second, blow out your atomizer. The atomizer comes from the factory with a “primer fluid” to keep it moist, but it tastes terrible. Simply place your mouth over the threaded end and blow hard onto a paper towel until no more liquid comes out.

Third, fill your cartridge. DO NOT OVERFILL. Use the dropper to drip the liquid until it no longer absorbs into the filler. Usually around 15 drops. If some liquid pools at the top, dab with a paper towel.

Fourth, drip TWO drops directly onto the metal coil in the atomizer.

Finally, attach the cartridge to the atomizer and then screw the atomizer onto the fully charged battery.

NOTE: There may still be some primer fluid on the atomizer, so you want to take a few puffs into your mouth and blow it directly out, to get the liquid flowing into the atomizer. Give 20-30 seconds between puffs, so the atomizer doesn’t get too hot. If you continue to taste a burnt/chemical taste, this is the atomizer burning off the primer fluid. Continue to “puff & blow” until the taste diminishes. If the taste gets worse, add two more drops directly onto atomizer again and continue to “puff and blow.”

For more information on the “burnt/bitter/chemical” taste issues, see this link: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/tips-tricks/42077-10-tips-avoid-harsh-burnt-taste-510-atomizers.html

Once the primer fluid has burned off, you should be good for up to 20 puffs before you have to "top off" (adding a couple of drops to the filler) or refilling. Read the sections below on cartridge modifications for optimal filling techniques and using the batteries properly.

Remember that this is NOT a tobacco cigarette. You don't draw on it as you would a cigarette. You want to take it easy on the draw. Slowly inhale, to allow the atomizer time to heat the liquid. Don't draw on it hard or you'll end up with a mouthful of unvaporized liquid!

510 Components

Battery
This is what powers your device. It is recommended that you charge it fully before first use. Batteries come in assorted body colors and LED colors. They are also available with no LED. Batteries come in automatic and manual styles.

Automatic:
The automatic has a switch built into it that activates by the air that rushes through it when you inhale. It is good for hands-free use, however, it is very sensitive and is known to activate by sound and light impact. This may cause it to turn on while in a pocket or purse and may have to be recharged more frequently. Automatic batteries also have an automatic shutoff built in that frustrates some users who want a longer, deeper draw. The automatic batteries have a hole in them to allow air flow for the switch. Consequently, it is recommended that caution be used not to overfill the cartridge, direct drip or flood the atomizer, because it can get into the battery. (More on flooding & dripping later.)

When using an automatic battery, it is recommended to employ a "primer puff" before every draw, to pre-heat the atomizer for optimal vapor production. This is taking a short puff, followed by the actual inhale draw.

Manual:
The manual switch activated with a button. It is generally the more popular option with experienced vapers, because it allows more control over the draw and heat. It also allows the atomizer to get a little hotter and produce more vapor. It usually does not have a shutoff built in. With this kind of use, the battery life tends to be shorter. The manual battery does not have any hole and therefore, better adapted for dripping and less susceptible to damage from the liquid.

When using a manual battery, a "primer puff" is not needed. Simply press the button before you begin your draw, then release after you are finished.

Regular & Extra Long Batteries:
The 510 has two lengths of batteries available. The regular length is what comes in most kits. An extra long version is available from some vendors. The extra long battery, also known as the Titan MEGA, lasts longer, however, it takes longer to charge and will not fit in the 510 Personal Charging Case.

USB Pass-through:
This accessory allows for direct power from a computer or AC outlet. It looks like a battery, but has a cord with a USB plug. It can be plugged directly into a computer USB port or into a USB AC or Car Adapter and plugged into an AC outlet or car lighter outlet. There are two versions of this accessory – one has an actual battery that is continuously recharged by the USB port (in a small battery case near the plug) and the other just has wires that go directly from the connector to the USB plug. Neither has an LED.

Atomizer
The atomizer (atty) is a heating element that heats up the liquid and turns it into a vapor. One end screws into the battery and the other end fits the cartridge. It consists of a small pot or chamber, which holds a reserve of the liquid. There is a metal mesh coil or “bridge,” which draws in the liquid from the cartridge to a fiberglass wick. The heating element heats up the liquid and turns it into a vapor, which is then drawn back through vents in the mouthpiece by the user. The 510 atomizer is often the source of issues with performance and taste.

Flooding:
If you get a “gurgling” sound when you draw on the device, you have flooded the atomizer. This means that there is too much liquid in the atomizer for it to properly vaporize. Remove the atomizer from the battery and cartridge and blow out the excess liquid onto a paper towel from the threaded end.

Cleaning:
The atomizers, by design, are not meant to last forever. However, you may be able to extend the life of your atomizer and improve performance with occasional cleaning. There are many tried and UN-proven methods for cleaning, some more successful than others. Most agree that occasionally blowing out the atomizer is a safe practice, as the liquid tends to build up in the atomizer.

Some signs that your atomizers may need cleaning are:
-Reduced vapor production
-Hard or difficult draw
-Burnt/Harsh taste

Here are the recommendations by the manufacturer, Joye Technologies: 510 usage and maintenance instructions from Joye Technology

The following cleaning methods have been tried by various ECF members. It is advised that these cleaning methods be tried ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. There are many, many opinions on cleaning and it is STRONGLY suggested that you read the various threads on this topic.

Hot Water Rinse: Run under VERY hot water. Dry 48 hours.

Soaking/Baths: Soak in one of the following; Everclear or 100 proof vodka, isopropyl alcohol, diet cola, Polident (denture cleaner), hydrogen peroxide, vinegar or ice machine cleaner. Rinse VERY well under hot running water. Dry 48 hours.

Read more on these methods:http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/tips-tricks/38167-cleaning-atomizers-5.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/experiments-equipment/10475-cola-method-taken-another-level-works.html

Hot Water Boil: Boil for 2-3 minutes, stirring continuously. Dry 48 hours.

Hot Water Boil w/Baking Soda: As above but with 1 tbsp baking soda added to the water. Rinse well. Dry 48 hours.

Dry Burn: Rinse under hot water. Dry 48 hours. Attach atomizer to battery. Press and hold battery button 4-7 seconds. Repeat until there is no vapor produced during the dry burn.

Burnt/Chemical/Bad Tastehttp://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/tips-tricks/42077-10-tips-avoid-harsh-burnt-taste-510-atomizers.html

Cartridge/Mouthpiece
The cartridge on a 510 is more complex than it seems at first glance. It is a combination of mouthpiece and filler/liquid chamber. One end is open to a chamber to add the filler material and liquid, the other end has another, smaller chamber, which is closed off with a removable end cap, with a hole in the center. This end can be round or have a “whistle tip,” which is flattened on two sides. If you look closely, there are two slots on the flat sides of the liquid chamber, going into the mouthpiece chamber. This is how the vapor gets from the atomizer to the mouth. The vapor does not travel through the filler material, it travels around the liquid chamber, into the mouthpiece chamber. When the filler end is fitted into the atomizer, the metal coil acts like a wick, drawing the liquid into the atomizer to be vaporized.

Loose Cartridges:
The diameter of 510 atomizer was recently made larger, resulting in the older, smaller cartridges not fitting properly and falling off. Loose cartridges were also a problem with the M-401 model and an ECF member came up with a modification to fix the problem. With the 510, you would make the modification to the outside of the cartridge, but you can get the idea here: Fixing loose cartridges on an M-401 electronic Cigarette

Filler
This is the material inside the refillable cartridge. It is a polyester batting material. It acts like a sponge, to keep the liquid from spilling out of the cartridge and available for the atomizer wick. This may be removed and replaced with another material, which is called a “modification” or “mod” for short. The liquid can eventually get "gummy" and affect the taste, throat hit or draw, so the filler should occasionally be removed, rinsed and dried for reuse.

Filler Modifications:
PTB (Pyramid Tea Bag) Mod: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/cartridge-mods/34401-ptb-plug-full-510-cart-2.html

Straw Mod: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/tips-tricks/11421-cart-mod-better-refilling.html#post176708

Fluval Mod: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/tips-tricks/20403-fluval-cartridge-restuffing-video-instructions.html

Blue Foam Mod: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/cartridge-mods/27723-eheim-filterpad-mod.html

Brass Screen Mod: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/cartridge-mods/38161-brass-screen-mod.html

More Ideas: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/cartridge-mods/index2.html

Dripping:
Some owners eschew filler altogether and choose to "direct drip." This simply means to take the filler out of the cartridge and "drip" 2-3 drops of liquid directly on the atomizer coil. Then, replace the mouthpiece and use as normal. Be careful not to over drip or you will flood the atomizer! Proponents of this method feel this gives a more consistant vapor and throat hit, without relying on filler materials.

Here is a modification made to aid with the drip method: Direct Drip Cart Mod (DDC)

There is also a cool little gadget for dripping called an e-Dobbit: .. : Sticker to it!, Vinyl Graphics & Lettering

Dipping:
Similar to dripping, dipping delivers the liquid directly to the atomizer. Dipping does not work well with the 510 atomizer, as the coil is recessed within its casing. Other models have an exposed atomizer coil, which allows for the owner to "dip" the coil into a small container of liquid. If you would like to try dipping with your 510, you can purchase a 306 model atomizer, which is compatible with the 510 battery. Proponents of this method sometimes prefer this over dripping, because it is less likely to flood the atomizer.

Chargers
There are three common chargers available for most 510 batteries: USB, AC and PCC.

USB:
Charges a single battery and plugs directly into your computer’s USB port. Place the threaded end of the battery in the hole and screw it in place until the light turns red. It will turn green when charged.

AC:
Charges a single battery and plug into a standard wall outlet. Has a removable cord. Also has a port for a car charger. Place the threaded end of the battery in the hole and screw it in place until the light turns red. It will turn green when charged.

PCC (Personal Charging Case):
Charges a single battery and also holds one atomizer and two cartridges. Plugs into a USB port, with a mini USB on one end and a standard USB on the other. Place the battery in the far right hole, thread side down. The pressure from the lid will push it into place to charge - it does not screw in place.

There are three lights on the PCC:
Top Light - Red indicates a battery is charging. Turns off when charged.
Middle Light - Red indicates the PCC battery is too low to charge the battery inside.
Bottom Light - Red indicates the PCC needs to be charged. Green means the PCC is fully charged and ready for your battery.

USB to AC Adapter: Allows any USB cord to plug into a standard AC outlet.

USB Car Charger Adapter: Allows any USB cord to plug into a car lighter outlet.

Car Charger: Allows the AC charger to charge a battery using a car lighter outlet.

e-Liquid
This is the liquid which gets vaporized by the atomizer. If you bought pre-filled cartridges, it has already been filled by the manufacturer. If you bought empty cartridges, you need to buy the liquid from a reputable vendor. Some liquids are factory-made in China and resold directly to the customers. Some liquids are custom-made by the vendor. The best way to decide on which liquid to buy is to visit the Supporting Suppliers forums: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/supporting-suppliers/ and read what their customers have to say about them.

e-Liquid is made of water, propylene or vegetable glycol, nicotine and food flavoring. Some also contain glycerine.

Common Nicotine Levels:
NONE (Zero)
Extra Low: 6-8MG
Low: 10-12mg
Medium: 16-18mg
High: 24-26mg
Extra High: 36mg
For Mixing/Diluting Only: 48mg, 60mg

Some vendors have created special mixes for higher temperature devices, which also work well with the 510 manual batteries. No one can tell you what tastes the best, it’s a matter of trial and error. It’s recommended that you buy samples from different vendors and find what works for you.

You can mix flavors to create your own. A couple of drops of "cola" with a drop or two of "vanilla" makes a great vanilla coke! Experiment and have fun. Don't limit yourself to just tobacco flavors, either - it's one of the best features of vaping.

Some people new to vaping complain that the flavors of the liquids are too faint or all taste the same in the 510. Give it some time. You have to break in/season the atomizer, to really get the full flavor. Also, after being off tobacco cigarettes for a few days, your taste buds will start to recover and the flavors will become more distinct. Some vendors even offer an option to double the flavor in their liquids. After a while, you be noticing all of the subtle tastes and smells you've been missing all of this time!

If you like menthol, you can increase the menthol content of your liquid by adding menthol crystals or menthol drops. Suprisingly, menthol liquid is popular with both former menthol tobacco smokers and non-menthol smokers alike. It's believed to add extra throat hit to other flavors, as well. Read more: Menthol fans!

It's recommended that you use a fresh atomizer for each flavor, as it's difficult to get certain flavors, such as menthol or clove, out if the atomizer wick. You don't want to have to do a throrough cleaning and wait 48 hours for drying time, every time you want to change flavors. So, get a new atomizer for each flavor you use. Some people label their atomizers or color code it with paint/nailpolish. You can also put the atomizer, with the cartridge, into a Ziploc Snack Bag with it's bottle, to keep them organized.

This guide is meant to be a primer and is not the definative guide to the Joye510! You can get advice and read more about your new 510 in the Model Specific Forum: Joye 510 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

Governor Schwarzenegger Protects Adult Consumers’ Access to E-Cigarettes

2009-10-13T12:08:00.000-07:00

Industry hails veto of anti-smoking alternative bill as victory for consumers, common sense Washington, D.C.

October 12, 2009

Matt Salmon, president of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA), today praised California Governor Schwarzenegger’s wise decision to veto Senate Bill 400, which would have banned electronic cigarette sales in the state, protecting adult consumers’ access to these alternative smoking devices.

“This is not just a victory for consumers and common sense but is smart public policy as well,” said Salmon. “Rejecting this bill is the right step and should serve as a model for other states to follow.”

In his veto message, Governor Schwarzenegger reiterated the stance of the ECA that strongly supports restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18. “We agree with the original intent of SB 400 to ban sales to those under the legal smoking age. And we support that on a national level as well,” added Salmon.

The Governor affirmed that this restriction should not apply to adult consumers: “If adults want to purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they should be able to do so unless and until federal law changes the legal status of these tobacco products.”

The ECA actively communicated to the Governor its members’ concerns about the bill and the fact that banning these electronic cigarettes would disenfranchise thousands of California adult smokers who have difficulty quitting but want an alternative to combustible cigarettes without the host of carcinogens and harmful chemicals. Salmon credited this legislative victory to the efforts of thousands of consumers and ECA members who appealed directly to Governor Schwarzenegger to protect their rights.

“While we know that combustible tobacco smoking kills over 400,000 Americans annually, and the percentage of smokers that quit every year is dismally low, we ought to be looking for more alternatives to traditional combustible tobacco products,” said Salmon.

Electronic cigarette kits usually include the electronic cigarette, a replaceable cartridge pack (that may or may not contain nicotine), rechargeable lithium batteries, and a charger. There is some variation between different companies in what is included in their starter kit, but all components are listed on their Web sites. While ECA members do not market these devices as a healthy alternative or smoking cessation device, it is clear that they do not contain the harmful tars and hundreds of carcinogens that consumers get from combustible tobacco products.

“We look forward to working with all government agencies, including the FDA, to ensure that consumers who want an alternative to combustible tobacco products have access to e-cigarettes that contain fewer harmful substances and produce no secondhand smoke,” concluded Salmon.

About the Electronic Cigarette Association
The ECA (www.ecassoc.org <http://www.ecassoc.org>) is an association of private sector companies engaged in electronic cigarette technologies. Its mission is to provide the tools and information necessary for policy-makers, opinion leaders, media, and private sector companies worldwide to make informed decisions about the management and use of electronic cigarette technologies. The association institutes and promotes industry-wide standards and a code of conduct, works to maintain sound professional practices, educates the public and policy-makers on the industry’s activities and potential, and works to ensure the ethical use of electronic cigarette technologies.

Contact:Matt Salmon
202.841.6729
msalmon@policyimpact.com

FDA Miscalculates Real Danger to Smokers

2009-10-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

The FDA is at a loss.

It knows why people want to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes - exposure to first and second hand smoke is proven to cause numerous health problems, from heart disease to cancer.

Up until now, the only way thought to quit smoking was to cure nicotine addiction. Beat the nicotine cravings, beat the urge to smoke - or so the theory goes. Consequently, the term "smoking cessation" has become synonymous with curing nicotine addiction with the use of Nicotine Replacement Therapies or NRTs.

However, focusing solely on nicotine addiction has been proven to be ineffective.

FDA-approved medications are tested in clinical trials and the enthusiasm of participants, close monitoring and counseling may all inflate the success numbers found in those studies, according to a report released in a 2002 edition of Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 288, No. 10: 1260-1264). "These products are designed to help with the cravings associated with smoking, but not the behavioral aspects," stated co-author Professor Elizabeth Gilpin, of the University of California. The report also pointed out that NRTs were originally by prescription only, giving patients trying to quit access to a physician's support and behavioral counseling.(1)

In the 2006 study, "Nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: a meta-analysis," the authors wrote, "Due to relapse, the overall efficacy of NRT treatment in terms of additional ex-smokers declined from 10.7% over and above placebo (6.6% to 14.8%) after one year to 7.2% (3.8% to 11.3%) at an average of 4.3 years follow up. "

"Because the long-term benefit of NRT is modest," the study concluded, "tobacco dependence treatment might be better viewed as a chronic disorder, requiring repeated episodes of treatment."(2)

So, why the extraordinary failure rate?

What Nicotine Replacement Therapy and other medications designed to solely treat nicotine addiction fail to address is the basic human tendencies of habit and ritual. Smokers don't just crave the nicotine. The physical act of smoking becomes integrated into their everyday activities to the point where the smokers are essentially lost without it. They become loyal to their cigarette brand. They find just the right holder and the best lighter.

Certain activities trigger the desire to light up, mostly common activities such as morning coffee, driving or after a meal. Just as people may bite on pen caps, twirl their hair or chew their lip, the act of taking a cigarette out, fiddling with it, lighting it, the sensation of inhaling the smoke, the feel of the smoke at the back of the throat and seeing the smoke swirling in the air are all part of the comfort mechanism for a smoker. That comforting ritual and habit is far and away the greatest reason why treatments that focus solely on nicotine addiction fail. After a year, there shouldn't be any more cravings for nicotine. Ask smokers why they started up again and they'll most likely point to a stressful event or period that caused them to seek out the comforting ritual of smoking, giving them a sense of control over their stress, not the craving for nicotine.

Nicotine is already acknowledged by the FDA and medical professionals to be one of the safer ingredients in tobacco cigarettes, as it's commonly used medically to assist smokers in the attempt to quit. Therefore, the FDA and medical professionals must agree that the greater danger in cigarettes is contained in the actual smoke, the known source of the tar, ammonia, acetone, carbon monoxide and other toxins and carcinogens.(3) So, why isn't the urgency to improve the smoker's health focused on removing the exposure to smoke, rather than the addiction to nicotine? Up until now, there hasn't been any alternative.

Enter the Personal Vaporizer or "electronic cigarette," a device whose growing popularity has left the FDA at a loss of how to properly categorize it.

For the first time in history, there is a device which, when used in lieu of tobacco cigarettes, targets the smoker's ritual and habit instead of the nicotine addiction. Nicotine is still present in the electronic cigarette and smokers are still comforted by the look and feel, as if they are still smoking, but the component most lethal to tobacco cigarette smokers and bystanders - the smoke - is absent.

Unlike NRTs, the consumer decides when and if they will reduce or eliminate their nicotine intake. The nicotine liquid sold by reputable manufacturers is available in measured levels of nicotine content, chosen by the consumer to match their former tobacco use. It consists of water, propylene glycol, nicotine and flavoring. Propylene glycol, a substance which is generally recognized as safe and approved for human inhalation by the EPA (4), is often confused with diethylene glycol, which is a toxic ingredient found in tobacco cigarettes (and antifreeze.) Propylene glycol is actually FDA-approved for human consumption and is used as a base for consumable products such as imitation vanilla and toothpaste and is the same substance used to create theatrical fog.

In July 2009, the FDA announced that laboratory analysis of two brands of electronic cigarettes found traces (approximately 1%) of diethylene glycol in one cartridge and certain tobacco-specific toxins, which are also found in tobacco cigarettes and FDA-approved NRTs. (5) However, the agency's analysis was also quite positive in the fact that researchers did not find the dangerous levels of toxins and carcinogens, such as the tar, carbon monoxide, ammonia, etc., that is found in tobacco smoke.(6)

The FDA, however, objected to some manufacturers' claims that the electronic cigarette is a smoking cessation device - falling back on the now outdated view that smoking cessation must involve nicotine replacement therapy - and electronic cigarettes have not been proven effective as NRTs through the proper studies. Electronic cigarette companies countered that their products are not intended for use as an NRT smoking cessation device, but rather as a smokeless alternative - one that mimics the habits and rituals of tobacco smoking, without giving up the nicotine. An FDA rebuttal cited numerous reports, including testimonials on vendor web sites, that consumers were using the device as a way to quit smoking and that indicated "intended use." As all NRTs fall under FDA jurisdiction, electronic cigarettes, the agency maintained, must be tested and shown to be as effective as other medicinal drugs.

Another July 2009 press release stated, "The FDA has been examining and detaining shipments of e-cigarettes at the border and products it has examined thus far meet the definition of a combination drug-device product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA has been challenged regarding its jurisdiction over certain e-cigarettes in a case currently pending in federal district court. The agency is also planning additional activities to address its concerns about these products." (7)

Most would agree that the FDA has some valid points. The nicotine liquid does need to be regulated for consistency in ingredients, labeling and safe packaging. Studies should be done for the long-term effects of its use. Laws should be passed limiting the use and sale to legal adults. However, in its zeal to gain control over the regulation of electronic cigarettes, the FDA insisted that the product be removed from the market altogether, rather than cautious use while the studies are being made. This caused a snowball of misinformation in the media and gave the general public the impression that electronic cigarettes have all of the same dangers of tobacco cigarettes, if not worse. These concerns have prompted several anti-smoking groups and legislators to call for a complete ban of electronic cigarettes, ignoring the undeniable fact that, in the absence of an alternative, most electronic cigarette owners will return to smoking deadly tobacco cigarettes.

Because the FDA is at a loss as to how to categorize electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation device without classification as an NRT and furthermore, by insisting that a smoking cessation device must address nicotine addiction, many believe the agency has miscalculated the greater danger facing current tobacco smokers - the actual smoke.

1. ACS News Center, "Smoking Cessation Aids Use Increases, Success Rate Declines" American Cancer Society

2. Jean-François Etter and John A Stapleton, "Nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: a meta-analysisTobacco Control

3. Terry Martin, The Effects of Smoking on Human Health. About

4. U.S. Environmengtal Protection Agency, Rerregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipopylene Glycol. EPA

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes FDA

6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Summary of Results: Laboratory Analysis of Electronic Cigarettes Conducted By FDA FDA

7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes FDA

Negative Reactions Mystify Electronic Cigarette Owners

2009-09-08T13:09:00.000-07:00

By Kristin Noll-Marsh

The booth at the Wisconsin State Fair Expo was black with big, gold lettering exclaiming, "Electronic Cigarettes - The Smoking Alternative!" Initially, I found the concept of electronic smoking laughable, as would most tobacco users. However, after dragging my husband over to the booth for a look, it only took us a moment to realize that this was a truly revolutionary invention. Surprisingly, the price was reasonable, too!

The vendor made it clear that it was not intended as a smoking cessation device, only a much safer and cheaper way to smoke. To date, there is no scientific proof that they are safer, but it didn't take a degree in rocket science to see that the absence of smoke, tar and a few thousand other ingredients - including the 60-70 known carcinogens and poisons found in tobacco - made the flavored nicotine liquid seem tame by comparison. Moreover, the ability to reduce the nicotine levels from high, medium and low to liquid containing no nicotine whatsoever was an appealing way to wean off nicotine altogether.

Of course, as soon as I got our new devices home, I had to log online to see what I could find out about them.

The first thing I found was a wide range of different devices and liquids available and not all devices are created equal.

Additionally, I found that a whole subculture has quickly built up around the new phenomenon of "vaping," the term coined by electronic cigarette owners to differentiate it from tobacco smoking. The electronic cigarette is known as a personal vaporizer, as it produces a fine mist or vapor, similar to the steam from a cup of hot coffee. Tobacco cigarettes are amusingly called "analogs." Personal vaporizer owners who have quit using tobacco cigarettes proudly consider themselves non-smokers.

"I feel free of cigarettes for the first time in my life," said James Solie, of Hudson, WI. Solie said his life has changed in so many ways since he has quit smoking. "I used to go to bed at night and could smell the smoke on myself, and it wasn't good. I don't miss that. I just feel better in every way imaginable. I breathe better, don't have that nasty congestion in the morning. My throat feels better. My sense of smell, thus taste, is much better." Solie added that his wife is happy that he has quit smoking, as well.

The fact that personal vaporizer owners are no longer smoking is difficult for non-smokers and smoke-free advocates to understand, because vapor looks similar in appearance to smoke. Thus many advocates welcomed recent news of the FDA's proposed ban on certain electronic cigarettes, due to safety concerns, and proposed bans on their use in public spaces in municipalities in New York, Connecticut and Oregon. Vaporizer owners fear the public has been falsely led to believe that personal vaporizers aren't any different than tobacco cigarettes.

"Because vaping looks like smoking people immediately associate the two and come to a bad conclusion," said Scott Brower, of Santa Clarita, CA. Brower said he was an occasional pipe and cigar tobacco smoker, but now enjoys only nicotine-free electronic pipes and cigars. "They need to be educated to understand the fundamental differences."

On the FDA report, Brower said, "The announcement was rushed and omitted critical details. What should have been a scientific process and conclusion felt more political and reactionary. While I applaud their recognition of vaping and the need for testing, I also have to admonish their lack of care and due process. The FDA serves a critical role and I want them to take a very hard look at vaping. However, they must follow the scientific method to the letter if they are to fulfill their purpose.
Given the potential significance of this to real tobacco users, and their fair and accurate treatment of this is literally life and death for millions."

Brower's response was typical of many vaporizer owners - one of shock and disbelief at the knee-jerk public and governmental reaction. It is hard for them to see the logic in allowing the sale and use of tobacco cigarettes, which are proven to contain dozens of poisons and carcinogens and create second-hand smoke while attempting to ban the vaporizers, which were found, in the FDA's own research, to possibly only contain trace amounts of adverse ingredients. As Brower pointed out, those results were based on incomplete data collected from only a few samples - out of hundreds of different liquids and cartridges available on the market.

Dr. Michael Siegel is a professor at Boston University School of Public Health and a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. On his blog, The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary, he commented, "With the FDA now approving the sale and marketing of conventional cigarettes, it is absurd to think that the Agency would spend so much of its energy on an attempt to remove this much safer alternative from the market, while ignoring the very real threat posed by the cigarettes being smoked by 45 million Americans."

"While further testing of electronic cigarettes is certainly warranted, and while restrictions on the sales of these products to minors and the types of marketing claims that can be made are reasonable," Dr. Siegel stated, "it would be criminal to take these products off the market. Smokers who have found these products to be a life-saver, allowing them to stay off regular cigarettes, should be permitted to have the choice of continuing to use the product while more definitive studies are conducted."

Other physicians seem to agree with his conclusions.

Just a few days before she started using a personal vaporizer, Julie Williams of Manchester, TN had a blood pressure reading of 230/110 and her heart rate was elevated. "I was on medication but it wasn't working," she recalled. "Within a week of vaping and only smoking 2-3 cigarettes a day, all my numbers went down to normal ones. My primary care doctor and cardiologist both attribute the change to me stopping smoking and vaping [instead.] Both doctors are telling other patients about e-cigs." She said she has now quit smoking tobacco cigarettes altogether. "Both my primary care physician and my cardiologist are behind me 100% in my vaping. I even vape in the exam rooms while we discuss my ongoing treatments."

Williams' doctors don't seem too concerned about alleged "second-hand vapor" either, unlike a few legislators and anti-smoking groups across the country, such as Suffolk County, NY, which, sponsored by Majority Leader Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Neck), bans e-cigarette use in public spaces.

"There is no substantial evidence that these devices do any harm to the user or bystanders around the user," argued Spike Babaian, of Long Island, NY, in a recent press release. "Despite the plethora of evidence provided to the Suffolk County legislature, that shows evidence that these devices are no more harmful than consuming a hot dog, they have determined that the "stress, fear and confusion," which the public could potentially feel due to the presence of the fog, was sufficient reason to force vapers to follow the Suffolk County smoking ordinance and utilize these devices only in areas where smoking is allowed."

"This restriction would push thousands of non-smoking Suffolk County residents who utilize nicotine vaporizers into smoking areas where they would be exposed to the second hand smoke and toxic chemicals that they quit smoking to avoid," continued Babian. "This is a clear violation of the civil rights of non-smokers who wish to avoid the toxic chemicals given off by cigarette smoke. This law was passed based on public fear, rather than fact, and the total disregard for the safety of these former smokers is an unjustifiable disgrace. Suffolk County’s Health and Human Services Committee, which is supposed to protect the health of Suffolk County residents, has put "psychological discomfort" of the minority ahead of physical health and that is an unforgivable offense."

Aside from putting electronic cigarette owners back into the toxic cloud produced by tobacco smoke, personal vaporizer owners point out that their vapor doesn’t contain the amounts of lethal toxins nor does it behave in the same manner as cigarette smoke. The vapor isn't created unless actively in use, unlike the smoke that continuously comes from a lit cigarette and it doesn't appear to travel more than a couple of feet from the user. It also tends to dissipate more quickly than smoke, making it fairly undetectable and unobtrusive for those nearby, so presenting the two as the same thing is misleading.

In addition to the "second-hand vapor," legislators and anti-smoking groups such as ASH, the national anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health, argue that the electronic cigarettes are being marketed to appeal to children, specifically through fruit and candy-like flavors. Such claims leave a bad taste in vapers mouths.

"I didn't know that once I grew up I had to stop liking things that taste good," said a confused Julie Williams. "You can get the [nicotine] gum in a number of flavors and they are out in the open for any kid to grab. What is a kid going to choose to buy...an e-cig that they have to save up to buy online ($50 and up for a starter kit) or a pack of cigarettes they can get anywhere for $5.00?"

Ed Corcoran, of Lowell, MA, was equally shocked by the allegations. "I think that's ludicrous," he said. "Many alcohol products have sweet, fruity flavors. No one accuses those manufacturers of marketing their products to children based on that criteria. Just because something is meant for adults only, that doesn't mean it has to taste bad."

Others counter that many children get access to cigarettes because of the low cost or sneaking cigarettes from a parent – something which is almost impossible to do unnoticed with a personal vaporizer. And even if a child decided to spend over $100 on equipment and liquid refills and lie about their age to obtain it, what reason would they have to order a fruity flavor filled with nicotine? Nicotine produces no pleasant "rush" or "high" for a non-smoker and the liquids are available nicotine-free, with the same taste. The accusation holds no credibility and defies logic.

Many proponents of personal vaporizers have begun to suspect that the bad press is being manufactured and research results are being misrepresented purely for financial gain. Simple research online reveals that their claim can easily be substantiated.

ASH, one of the loudest opponents to electronic cigarettes and often a source of exaggerated or false propaganda, reportedly receives huge contributions from Pfizer Inc., the maker of numerous nicotine replacement drugs designed to assist smokers with quitting cigarettes. One of their products is Chantix, already known by the FDA to have been related to 78 deaths, 28 of which were suicides. Yet, the FDA has not banned that particular smoking cessation product and is going after electronic cigarettes, which have thus far not had any reported adverse effects or related deaths.

"If e-cigarettes really take off, they represent a huge threat to the profits of pharmaceutical companies, and in turn, they represent a threat to future funding of ASH," explained Dr. Siegel on his blog. "This conflict of interest is significant, but ASH has failed to disclose it in any of its statements about the dangers of electronic cigarettes. Each of the other anti-smoking groups which have warned the public about the dangers of e-cigarettes is also heavily funded by Big Pharma. Is this merely a coincidence? I think not."

While reputable electronic cigarette manufacturers and resellers do not advertise their product as a smoking cessation device, it is hard to ignore the anecdotal evidence that they end up being just that for many tobacco smokers who switch exclusively to personal vaporizers. It is common knowledge that most FDA-approved medical alternatives, such as nicotine gum and patches, are dismal failures, with some studies showing less than a 6.75% success rate after six months.

"The drugs are approved because they've shown in FDA studies that they're better than placebo," said Dr. Edward Levin, a psychopharmacological researcher at Duke University Medical Center in Raleigh, N.C., in a recent CNN article. "But being better than placebo doesn't take a whole lot, so there really is room for improvement." A University of Wisconsin study showed that the most successful drug, Chantix, only had a 44% success rate during 12 weeks of use. That success dropped to one in four in the weeks after the treatment was stopped.

In contrast, a survey of personal vaporizer owners at an electronic cigarette support site shows that 79% of respondents indicated that they have successfully quit smoking tobacco cigarettes. Some continue to use nicotine doses, others have reduced or eliminated the nicotine altogether. They feel that the gradual reduction of nicotine intake, with a familiar and comforting delivery system, allows them to immediately remove the known dangers of cigarette smoke while weaning off the nicotine.

Some may even continue to use the devices purely for recreational use, even with the nicotine. They see no difference in enjoying their nicotine alternative like others who enjoy recreational use of alcohol, caffine or chocolate. Personal vaporizers give them a way to do this without affecting those around them, as cigarette smoke did. Nicotine is a legal substance and adults should be allowed to enjoy it responsibly, they argue.

Dawn Brain, of Smith Mountain Lake, VA, did not start using personal vaporizers to quit smoking, she only wanted a lower cost alternative.

"I didn't start using them for health reasons," Brain said. "I decided to try [personal vaporizers] because I was tired of the cost of cigarettes going up. When the price of the brand I was smoking went from $23 to $35 in one week I was fed up. If I had not had PVs to turn to I would have kept smoking and just grumbled about the fact that my cost went up by 50% over night, but this time I had an option and I jumped on it.

"Added to the cost benefit," Brain continued, "I liked the fact that my house and clothes would no longer smell like cigarettes and I wouldn't be putting 35 cigarette butts into the landfill daily. I no longer have to worry about my cats knocking over my ashtray and having to clean up ashes and butts."

"It never occurred to me that I would feel so much better, be able to breathe deeply for the first time in 23 years, and be able to taste things that had lost much of their flavor from my smoking."

Electronic cigarettes may save many lives, providing the FDA doesn’t make them illegal. Responsible vaporizer owners are mystified about the reactions to the revolutionary device, and hope that as the public becomes more knowledgeable, they will be more positively received.

Thanks to a chance encounter at the expo that day, my husband and I are now ex-smokers. Like thousands of other personal vaporizer owners, who are now smoke free, I wonder how can that be considered a bad thing?

__________________________________________________________
Dr. Michael Siegel, My Op-Ed in Hartford Courant Calls for a Scientific, Not an Ideological or Political Response to the Electronic Cigarette Issue, The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

Dr. Michael Siegel, Action on Smoking and Health Warns Public of the Dangers of "Secondhand Electronic Cigarette Smoke", The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Summary of Results: Laboratory Analysis of Electronic Cigarettes Conducted By FDA , FDA.gov

Suffolk County Legislature, Resolution No. 717: A local law banning the sale of e-cigarettes to persons under the age of 19, legis.suffolkcountyny.gov

Spike Babaian, Suffolk County, New York says Former Smokers are still "Smoking", PRLog.org
Aaron Smith, Antismoking drugs go up in smoke, CNNMoney.com

E-cigarette-forum.com Poll, E-Cig Success Rate?, e-cigarette-forum.com

National Cancer Institute, Cigarette Smoking and Cancer: Questions and Answers, Cancer.gov

John R. Polito , Chantix blamed for 3,063 serious injuries and 78 deaths, WhyQuit.com

__________________________________________________________

Kristin Noll-Marsh is a real estate consultant, blogger, freelance writer and now an ex-smoker in Antigo, WI.