Are nicotine e-cigarettes a tobacco product?

I frequently see vapers arguing that e-cigarettes are not a "tobacco product," because they do not actually contain tobacco. They argue that nicotine e-cigarettes are not the same as tobacco or smoking cessation products and should have a classification all of their own.

However, nicotine isn't regulated in the U.S. by what form it takes, but instead by "intended use."

If the nicotine is contained in a product with an "intended use" as a smoking cessation or other treatment, it is then regulated as a "drug" and must go through clinical trials, studies, etc., and the product must meet strict manufacturing protocols before release to the public. If the nicotine is contained in a product with an intended use of "recreational" (ie. intended for human consumption but not as a treatment of any kind) it is regulated as a tobacco product. (A third classification is a pesticide, but that form of nicotine is not allowed for human consumption.)

Please. Just smoke already and quit lying.

Guns & Roses guitarist, DJ Ashba, reported to his fans on webstagram that the e-cigarette he bought at a Polish mall, which he reports he used for 9 months, contained "antifreeze which kills people;" and that his doctors told him to start smoking again, because "the nicotine intake that was going into [his] body" from the smoke-free e-cigarettes "was equivalent to smoking 33 packs of cigarettes a day."

Is distrusting the MHRA's regulation of e-cigarettes "conspiracy theories?"

Recently on a forum for e-cigarette enthusiasts, a commenter said he "saw no harm" in the move to regulate electronic cigarettes as medicine in the U.K., if what the MHRA was saying about just wanting to have e-cigarette companies "apply for licensing and to make sure the nic juices deliver consistent amounts of nicotine as advertised" was true. Apparently expecting doubt from other commenters that the MHRA was being forthright, the commenter said, "Conspiracy theorists have at it."

How is it a conspiracy theory, I asked? These people have 30 years of lying to the public about tobacco, nicotine and low risk alternatives as evidence they have no interest in telling the truth.

France: people still smoking, so ban using smoke-free e-cigarettes

"France will ban electronic cigarette smoking in public places by imposing the same curbs enforced since 2007 to combat tobacco smoking, Health Minister Marisol Touraine said on Friday." (Reuters)

Really? The 2007 smoking ban has been able to "combat tobacco smoking?" As usual, I did some research. (Unfortunately, it seemed impossible to find the French adult smoking rates from 2000 - 2012 online, so I went with the number of cigarettes sold as an indicator.)

From 2002 to 2007, the number of cigarettes sold in France declined 37.9%. Since the smoking ban was imposed in 2007, the number of cigarettes sold has declined only 7.5%, as of 2012. For the five years before the ban, the average drop in cigarette sales was 6.3% per year. After the ban, the annual decline has been 1.3% on average. (Source: French Observatory of Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2013 Edition) 

EU politician shows what governments really fear about e-cigarettes

Giancarlo Scottà, a member of the European Parliament from Italy, recently posted this question to his fellow EU  politicians:

"The consumption of traditional cigarettes provides the Member States with sizeable revenues, as a result of the substantial taxes to which they are subject. 

According to a recent report by ANSA (Italian news agency) of 21 April 2013, in the first two months of 2013 alone, Italy’s coffers registered a loss of EUR 132 million, corresponding to a fall in revenue from duty on tobacco of approximately 7.6%. Of course, this shortfall cannot be completely blamed on the increasing use of electronic cigarettes, but it is certainly partly responsible.  

In light of the above, can the Council state what action it intends to take to address the differences in tax revenue materialising in State coffers following the proliferation of electronic cigarettes, which currently appear to be free from any form of duty?"

E-cigarettes: the bad news is...
people are buying fewer cigarettes.

FDA: The hypocrisy continues

Below is an excerpt from a good article by Dr. Michael Siegel whose blog - "The Rest of the Story, Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary" often covers smoking harm reduction topics.

---

The Rest of the Story

Not only is the FDA spouting old tobacco industry propaganda for which the anti-smoking groups and federal government attacked the companies, but it is taking that deception of the American public to an even higher level. While the cigarette companies merely suggested that major changes in their products could make a cigarette safer, the FDA is stating that minuscule changes in a cigarette can make it safer than others on the market.

The ultimate irony here is that if the cigarette companies made precisely the same claim as the FDA, the agency and anti-smoking groups would be blasting the companies and probably would be preparing a lawsuit against them for racketeering and fraud....

Read Full Article >

The ANTZ smoking rate shell game

In 1990, the number of smokers was 45.8 million (25.5%). The Surgeon General announced the goal of reducing the smoking rate to 15% by 2000.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1990

By 2000, the number of smokers was 46.5 million (an increase of 700,000 smokers) but the "prevalence" or "rate" (percentage of adults smoking) was "reduced" to 23.3%. The ANTZ claimed their efforts were working - because the smoking rate was reduced from 25.5% to 23.3% - but they needed billions more in funding because the goal of 15% was still not reached. So a goal of a 12% smoking rate was set for 2010.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2000