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!
Showing posts with label fda ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fda ban. Show all posts
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Are Electronic Cigarettes Safer than Traditional Cigarettes?
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.
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.
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, butRead more:
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
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.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Electronic Cigarette Users Fighting Back
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
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
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Smokefree Wisconsin Continues Endangering Smokers
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:
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:
Judge Leon also refused to fall for the FDA's and other organizations' claim that electronic cigarettes are a danger to consumers:
Now, that is a statement that couldn't be more true.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
CASAA Applauds Electronic Cigarette Ruling
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)
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.
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)
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
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
Monday, October 12, 2009
FDA Miscalculates Real Danger to Smokers
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
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Negative Reactions Mystify Electronic Cigarette Owners
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
