Despite the incredible promise that e-cigarettes hold for the millions of smokers in the U.S., the FDA has been decidedly hostile towards e-cigarettes and other reduced harm alternatives to smoking. The FDA attempted to characterize e-cigarettes as pharmaceutical products ,which would have resulted in a de facto ban. When that didn’t work, the FDA continued its war against tobacco harm reduction, misinforming the
public about the relative risks associated with e-cigarette use.
The FDA has announced that in April it will issue guidance on e-cigarettes and will regulate them as tobacco products. Depending on its approach, the FDA could effectively decimate the e-cigarette industry through excessive regulations. In light of the actions of the FDA to date, vapers should hold little hope that the FDA's proposed regulations will be reasonable.
My views on tobacco and nicotine consumer issues, nanny state policies, Libertarian viewpoints, harm reduction, electronic cigarettes, snus, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, Smokefree Wisconsin and other random topics that pop up.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Should people use e-cigarettes in public?
Yes!
The only way we'll get "the masses" to understand just how different e-cigarettes are from traditional cigarettes is for them to experience them up close and personal. Otherwise, all they have are pictures, which can't possibly convey how the vapor is non-irritating and basically odorless in an open setting where smoke may still bother them (ie., bar, restaurant, mall, park, pool, office.)
If you think of the fact that 99% of the support for laws against second hand smoke were passed based solely on the fact that people find it annoying (rather than any real proof of health risks,) it's the lack of annoyance factors that will "sell" e-cigarettes to non-smokers more than anything else. The only way to convince them that e-cigarette vapor won't annoy them is for them to actually experience it, because pictures and video just seem to show "smoking."
The only way we'll get "the masses" to understand just how different e-cigarettes are from traditional cigarettes is for them to experience them up close and personal. Otherwise, all they have are pictures, which can't possibly convey how the vapor is non-irritating and basically odorless in an open setting where smoke may still bother them (ie., bar, restaurant, mall, park, pool, office.)
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The same types of lies support most prohibitions
by Dr. Carl Phillips, CASAA Science Director
Dick Puddlecote just posted a nice analysis of the annoying tendency of cannabis users to attack tobacco (and alcohol) use and users, motivated in part by a misguided notion that by joining the attack on other drugs they will somehow make their own drug more respectable. As DP points out, this is very unlikely to serve their cause, and that the better strategy would be to join an alliance opposed to all prohibitions of moderately hazardous individual choices. Appeasement of the oppressors is seldom a useful strategy for more than a few minutes.
I would add to that the following: The exact same lies - junk science, hyping of moderate or trivial risks, scary claims about “chemicals”, hyperbole about cost burdens imposed on others, scapegoating of a minority, etc. - are embedded in the “anti” movements across all of these behaviors. So not only does appeasement tend to empower the extremists, who move between attacking one behavior they personally disapprove of to another (basically depending on where they can get paid to do it), but it further institutionalizes the lies that can be used to support prohibitionism. [Read More]
Dick Puddlecote just posted a nice analysis of the annoying tendency of cannabis users to attack tobacco (and alcohol) use and users, motivated in part by a misguided notion that by joining the attack on other drugs they will somehow make their own drug more respectable. As DP points out, this is very unlikely to serve their cause, and that the better strategy would be to join an alliance opposed to all prohibitions of moderately hazardous individual choices. Appeasement of the oppressors is seldom a useful strategy for more than a few minutes.
I would add to that the following: The exact same lies - junk science, hyping of moderate or trivial risks, scary claims about “chemicals”, hyperbole about cost burdens imposed on others, scapegoating of a minority, etc. - are embedded in the “anti” movements across all of these behaviors. So not only does appeasement tend to empower the extremists, who move between attacking one behavior they personally disapprove of to another (basically depending on where they can get paid to do it), but it further institutionalizes the lies that can be used to support prohibitionism. [Read More]
Monday, November 19, 2012
ANTZ CHECK #6: E-liquid poses a high poison risk to children
Follow my new "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)
![]() |
| RATING: TOXIC SHOCKER |
Because the refill liquids contain nicotine, taste good and can "look like liquid candy," they pose a significant poisoning risk to small children. This is yet another reason to fear and distrust e-cigarettes (and other smoke-free tobacco products.)
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
ANTZ CHECK #5: E-cigarettes will lead to smoking
Follow my new "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)
THE LIE:
E-cigarettes will not only cause ex-smokers to resume smoking, but will also act as a "gateway" to smoking for youth.
![]() |
| RATING: EGO BOOSTER |
E-cigarettes will not only cause ex-smokers to resume smoking, but will also act as a "gateway" to smoking for youth.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
ANTZ CHECK #4: There is no (scientific) evidence
Follow my "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)
THE LIE:
The ANTZ continue to claim that there is "no evidence" that e-cigarettes are safe and/or effective smoking cessation products or safer than smoking. The phrase "scientific evidence" is often used so they can later dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit their definition of "scientific."
![]() |
| RATING: B*** S*** LIE |
The ANTZ continue to claim that there is "no evidence" that e-cigarettes are safe and/or effective smoking cessation products or safer than smoking. The phrase "scientific evidence" is often used so they can later dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit their definition of "scientific."
Monday, October 1, 2012
ANTZ CHECK #3: Not a safe alternative to smoking
Follow my "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)
THE LIE:
E-cigarettes and smoke-free tobacco products are not a safe alternative to smoking.
![]() |
| RATING: TRUTH TWISTER |
E-cigarettes and smoke-free tobacco products are not a safe alternative to smoking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





