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.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
American Lung Association vs Electronic Cigarettes
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Electronic Cigarette Organization Sponsors Auction for Research
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
"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
Monday, December 28, 2009
Smoke Free Wisconsin wins "Lie of the Year" award
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
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
Friday, December 11, 2009
Legislators Jump On Elctronic Cigarette "Ban" Wagon
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
