Articles

e-Cigarette Safety

Ever since news of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke hit the public consciousess around the middle of the 20th century the tobacco industry and others have been looking for a “healthy” alternative. Are e-cigarettes just latest in a list of failed attempts to make smoking safe?

In case you are a new visitor to our planet (welcome) using tobacco products has been determined to be a significant risk factor in developing certain kinds of lung cancer and vascular disease, including strokes and heart attacks (the top three killers).  The tobacco industry initially tried desperately to deny or downplay the scientific evidence for the health risks of smoking, engaging in a campaign of doubt and confusion, but those efforts ultimately failed.

Some companies marketed light, low tar, and filtered cigarettes with the claim, direct or implied, that they were a more healthful alternative to regular cigarettes. However, there has never been convincing evidence that such cigarettes are less of a health risk. Still, the marketing stuck and now 90% of all cigarettes sold are filtered.

Another alternative marketed as less of a health risk is Asian herbal cigarettes – marketed mainly in Asia where smoking is on the rise. However, here too evidence is lacking for reduced risk compared to tobacco. Smokers may just be trading one set of carcinogens for another.

All of these products raise concerns that they will keep people smoking under the false hope that they are at less risk of adverse health consequences. The optimal outcome for public health is to reduce the number of people smoking at all.

The latest player in this game of “safe smoking” is the e-cigarette. This is a battery operated cigarette-shaped tube that provides a nicotine vapor when inhaled. The goal is provide smokers with their nicotine fix (nicotine is the primary addictive substance in tobacco) without all the carcinogens and carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke.

The problem, again, is that the marketing may be getting ahead of the evidence. The British Medical Journal recently reported that there is insufficient evidence to justify any claims for reduced risk from e-cigarettes.

The concept itself is plausible – e-cigarettes may be considered just another nicotine delivery system, no different than nicotine gum or the patch. But it is a unique delivery system that needs to be investigated. For example, the BMJ reports that there may be chemical contaminants in the vapor that contain some fo the same carcinogens as in tobacco smoke, although in lower amounts. Also the dose and route of entry of nicotine may have unanticipated health risks.

There are two claims for e-cigarettes that need to be investigated: do they help people quit smoking, and what is their overall health risk. Neither question has been adequately answered with scientific research.

Regulators in different countries are taking slightly different approaches to the problem. Some feel that e-cigarettes are probably safer than smoking tobacco, and therefore should not be discouraged as an alternative. Others simply choose to warn the public that the data is not in, so consumers should exercise caution.

But once again there is the fear that belief in the safety (relative or absolute) of e-cigarettes may keep people consuming nicotine and even smoking longer.

Only one thing is clear at this point – rational public policy on such issues needs to be informed by scientific evidence, which is currently lacking.

Posted in: Public Health

Leave a Comment (87) ↓

87 thoughts on “e-Cigarette Safety

  1. MaikUniversum says:

    yeah, I also recently encountered these “e-sticks”, ha. Well, it’s quite interesting, though I didn’t try it, I quited smoking year and a half ago (thanks to Allen Carr [un]brainwashing book, lol).

    But it’s sure just another way to smoke nicotine. I don’t believe, that “e-sticks” can help someone quit smoking.

  2. windriven says:

    I wasn’t able to easily find figures for the market size for e-cigarettes in the US. Perhaps the device is too new for meaningful numbers to be compiled.

    That said, who in their right mind would be seen in public (can one use e-cigs in non-smoking environments?) with one of those things? They look completely dorky. It ought to be illegal unless you wear your pants above your navel and have at least 4″ of your (white) socks showing.

    Seriously, FDA apparently tried to block e-smoking products but was blocked by US District Judge Richard Leon.

    For the text of his ruling: http://www.e-cig.org/2010/01/14/federal-judge-fda-has-no-authority-over-electronic-cigarettes/

    The e-smokers are understandably overjoyed. I was not able to find any indication of incipient legislative action in either the House or the Senate. Neither was I able to find evidence of FDA appealing Leon’s ruling.

    -Do we have a right to prohibit adults from ingesting nicotine?
    -If so under which Article of the Constitution?
    -Is e-smoking prima facie ‘safer’ than smoking tobacco?
    -Doesn’t FDA have regulatory authority over drug delivery devices*?
    -At a minimum shouldn’t e-cigarette manufacturers have to prove that their devices administer predictable doses and that there are appropriate safeguards in the event of malfunctions?
    -Shouldn’t e-cigarette manufacturers be required to demonstrate that their devices administer only the target drug(s) and nothing else?

    *The lung is a delicate organ with an immense surface area allowing extremely rapid delivery of drugs to the body. It has been the anesthesiologists’ choice since the days of cyclopropane and ether.

    Just wonderin’

  3. Jack123 says:

    You forgot to mention that nicotine is quite toxic by itself!

    It’s toxic to the vasculature and an indirect cancer-promoter (e.g. via angiogenesis IIRC). What I’d like to see addressed is whether those effects are significant at the doses found in cigarettes or e-cigarettes.

  4. Galadriel says:

    Is “secondhand smoke,” at least, less of a problem with these things? It sounds like they’re not constantly burning and producing smoke when in use.

  5. JM Shep says:

    As the cost of cigarettes rise, I have looked into e-cigs. They say on the website that they contain no chemicals other than the nicotine and something else that allows the nicotine to be vaporized an propelled by the device. It also says you can smoke them inside (I live in MN where there is a state-wide smoking ban in bars/restaurants, etc).

    However, learning that they’re not controlled by the FDA makes me wary. The FDA may not be fool-proof, but that just puts these e-cigs in the same category as dietary and ‘herbal’ ‘supplements.’

    I also don’t think they’re necessarily intended to use as a smoking cessation aid. They are more so being touted as a safer, cheaper alternative to smoking cigarettes. Although I did just check e-cig.com and they say, “If you want to buy the electronic cigarette products for your smoking or quit smoking needs, do not look further.”

    I guess until more definitive information is out, I’d stay away from these. At least I know the risks of smoking traditional cigarettes. (And I know I should quit.)

  6. windriven says:

    “It also says you can smoke them inside”

    As most smoking control ordinances and laws are promulgated on the local and state levels I would be wary of broadly worded permissions. At a minimum smoking e-cigs in a public place will likely invite unpleasant discourse with non-smokers.

    I would venture a guess that not all of the available nicotine is captured by the lung and photographs I have seen of e-smokers shows them exhaling a billow of vapor. I for one would not want to be breathing someone’s residual nico-steam.

  7. JM Shep says:

    @windriven

    I completely agree with you. I would even feel uncomfortable ‘smoking’ one of these indoors. Although considering the FDA can’t get a handle on these devices, preventing their use indoors poses yet another problem.

    The more I think about these things (and discuss them with my coworker), the more I would avoid them at all costs, and I would even suggest to people who use them to not.

  8. qetzal says:

    @windriven:

    Thanks for the link to the court ruling on e-cigs.

    It’s worth noting that the judge didn’t actually rule that e-cigs are OK, or that FDA cannot ban. He only granted a preliminary injection requested by the e-cig companies.

    The underlying lawsuit addresses whether FDA can ban e-cigs as unapproved drug/device combos. FDA had been blocking the import of e-cigs on that basis, and the e-cig mfrs sued. This judge concluded that the e-cig mfrs are likely to succeed in their lawsuit against FDA, so he granted their preliminary injunction and told FDA to stop blocking import and sale of e-cigs.

    FDA may still win the underlying lawsuit, however, despite Judge Leon’s expectations. If so, they will again be able to block the import and sale of e-cigs as unapproved drug/device combos.

    I find it interesting to compare e-cigs to nicotine patches. Each is intended to deliver nicotine to the user. The patch is unquestionably a drug under FDA’s regulatory purview. However, the e-cig mfrs argue that their product is not a drug because it’s ‘functionally equivalent’ to a cigarette, and isn’t intended for smoking cessation.

  9. windriven says:

    @qetzal

    Quite right. But I suspect this is the camel’s nose. In American legislation as in American jurisprudence, you usually get as much as you can afford. The e-cig manufacturers and importers have a huge potential market in the US and can be expected to spend lavishly to advance their interests.

    On the other side we have … who? The FDA, of course. But they aren’t much of a lobby in Congress and GS-15 lawyers aren’t often in the same league as $600 an hour litigators. It will take organization and cash or perhaps an enterprising group of plaintiff’s lawyers. Unfortunately, plaintiff’s lawyers of that ilk are only attracted when there is a sufficient pile of carrion to offer a chance at a monumental award.

  10. Scott says:

    Is “secondhand smoke,” at least, less of a problem with these things? It sounds like they’re not constantly burning and producing smoke when in use.

    I’ve seen them in use (there’s a kiosk in the mall where my wife works that has the workers using them continuously as an advertisement). They spew out MORE smoke than regular cigarettes, though I don’t really know the contents and therefore the risks.

    They look and smell WORSE than regular cigarettes, and that’s impressive.

  11. CMN says:

    I think the author is coming at this from the wrong perspective. The post’s overall discouraging tone seems to be coming from a world where no one smokes tobacco, and no one likes nicotine – a completely false and unrealistic premise. No doubt the author has heard of harm reduction, since it is a well accepted and important pillar of public health. From that perspective, isn’t the concept of the e-cig a welcome, and encouraging, development?

    The question I would ask of Steven is: Do you really, honestly believe that e-cigarettes are anywhere near as dangerous as smoking real cigarettes?

    There are a few fallacious points that seem to be made in this article, and one is the seeming willingness to dismiss e-cigarettes on the basis that other attempts (made by completely distinct industries) to make a safer cigarette have failed. The other implication throughout this article is that because of a lack of evidence to support it, the e-cig must be dangerous. A lack of evidence does not mean something is bad, it means we must investigate it further. While the author does indicate that more testing must be done, the overall tone is one of discouragement and doubt. In reality, toxicology tests done by the FDA and other third party agencies have actually been quite encouraging (yes, even that one done by the FDA where they concluded the e-cig was bad). The FDA’s own report showed levels of TSNAs that were comparable to levels found in an already-approved nicotine delivery device, and certainly at levels that are nowhere near the levels in traditional cigarettes. (See http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/07/comparison.html for an analysis of the carcinogen levels in different products.) To say that testing hasn’t been done is simply incorrect. Long-term, real world population level tests should be done (as well as proper regulation of the e-cig liquid), but because the evidence thus far is so encouraging, smokers should not be discouraged from trying these.

    Also, this last paragraph bothers me: “But once again there is the fear that belief in the safety (relative or absolute) of e-cigarettes may keep people consuming nicotine and even smoking longer.”

    By “smoking”, do you mean, using the e-cigarette? No combustion is involved in the e-cigarette and thus it is a distinct behaviour from lighting up tobacco. Perhaps you meant just using nicotine then? Nicotine is also a legal substance, and at recreational doses poses no more health risk than caffeine. If you eliminate most of the health risk from smoking (as appears to be the case with the e-cig), is it really that troublesome that some people will still choose to use nicotine?

  12. CMN says:

    Apologies for forgetting my affiliation – I work in tobacco harm reduction (TobaccoHarmReduction.org). We have an FAQ on e-cigarettes posted at http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/ecigs.htm.

  13. yogsodoth says:

    As an vaper (e-cigarette user) and ex-smoker, I feel the need to address a few points here:

    1) E-cigarette vapour consists of either propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. Both types of vapour have a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) rating from the FDA. Both are used in theatrical fog machines for concerts, plays, movies, etc. The levels of nicotine on the vapour are similar or identical to the levels of nicotine in second-hand cigarette smoke: that is to say, 99.9% of nicotine in the vapour is absorbed as soon as it hits a mucous membrane. The .01% remaining upon exhalation is unlikely to affect anyone in any way.

    2) E-cigarettes may or may not contain carcinogenic byproducts of the nicotine extraction process, depending on the method used to extract the drug from tobacco. In all formulations studied by the FDA and BMJ, the levels of these chemicals were far below the threshold required to classify them as dangerous or cancer-causing and more than 3 orders of magnitude lower than those found in tobacco smoke. You are exposed to more carginogens by getting a whiff of car exhaust or sitting around a campfire than by being exposed to second-hand e-cig vapour. Remember, we’re talking about a drug extraction process here – these are the same methods pharma companies use to extract nicotine for their gum, lozenge and inhaler products (without the time release encapsulation step they perform at the end, and with less purification steps as it is an industrial, rather than pharmaceutical process).

    3) As an ex-smoker, I enjoy nicotine, but I can’t justify the harm done to both myself and others from smoking. The balance of evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are several orders of magnitude less dangerous in terms of both carcinogenic and circulatory/vascular damage than smoking regular tobacco. I therefore choose to self-medicate in this way. Honestly, it’s no different from having a cup of coffee or a glass of beer.

    4) E-cigarette second-hand vapour disperses and diffuses much more quickly than actual smoke and contains no particulates, and only trace amounts of volatiles. In my own experience, according to my friends, sitting across the table from an e-smoker causes no irritation. I have used them in restaurants and bars with no complaints. Those who have looked askance are quickly treated to a demonstration and have no further problems.

    Scott:[quote]They look and smell WORSE than regular cigarettes, and that’s impressive.[/quote]

    Do you also hate the smell of concert fog machines? You honestly prefer the smoke of a real tobacco cigarette to propylene glycol vapour? Because I’ve never met a non-smoker who does. Not once.

  14. Joe Chill says:

    @ Jack123

    “# Jack123on 20 Jan 2010 at 9:23 am
    You forgot to mention that nicotine is quite toxic by itself!
    It’s toxic to the vasculature and an indirect cancer-promoter (e.g. via angiogenesis IIRC). What I’d like to see addressed is whether those effects are significant at the doses found in cigarettes or e-cigarettes.

    Why do people who are “anti-smoking” seem to dance around or refute the exact opposite of the known benefits?

    “Smoking also appears to interfere with development of Kaposi’s sarcoma,[49] breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene,[50] preeclampsia,[51] and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma.[52] A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be nicotine acting as an anti-inflammatory agent, and interfering with the inflammation-related disease process, as nicotine has vasoconstrictive effects.[53]”

    That is smoking tobacco, now let’s talk about “e-cigs”. There is no issue with it being used in public as it NOT burning anything. There is no tobacco, THAT, is the item that burns and has the carcinogenic attributes you are applying to nicotine. There is no mechanism for it to burn, no tobacco, therefore there is no plausible way anyone could have issue with someone doing it. Even in your face, in a crowded restaurant, or a room filled with two year olds with Lego’s up their noses. No one is bothered by someone ingesting their candies, chewing gum, (though annoying), or using their asthma inhaler. It has no ramifications on anyone not inhaling the product. Prove it, do the studies then get an opinion. Not a zillion “what if’s” based on your previous anti smoking diatribes. Smoking tobacco is one thing, inhaling nicotine another.

    All this hyperbole and anecdotal flap, “Ohhh I wouldn’t even “smoke” one of these indoors”. What are you people talking about. Do some research. There is no second output from the mechanism except water vapor. Better rush to turn off your humidifiers before you dump a load of cancer on your houseplants and progeny. (Insert a large dollop of sarcasm.) Why don’t you remove your bias and get some straight fact. Mr. Novella is erring on the side of caution, and I can respect those of that ilk. Nicotine replacement is not the bastion of the ANTI SMOKING lobby, “NOT SMOKING” is.

    The three known studies; one by the FDA, (with it’s claims the delivery system gave some variance of nicotine per inhale), Private enterprise Health New Zealand, (recommends e-cigarettes as compared to tobacco cigarettes), Demokritos, a publicly-funded Greek research institute, (did not find any evidence of chemical contamination). Seems these studies don’t even hit upon issues you rile about and do not support your bias.

    Kudos to Mr. Novella and skepticism, but sad to see the comments lack the same unbiased skepticism.

  15. Kate says:

    Please educate yourselves, some of the comments here and the original article are scary.

    Vapour is not smoke. Smoke is the harmful thing about smoking, vaping has no smoke.

    Nicotine is a toxin and can be used in excess, so can alcohol.

    Vaping is considered at least 99% safer than smoking – again, there is no smoke. If you put people off something 99% healthier because you don’t know how to define safe then you’re not fit to be called health professionals.

    Nothing is safe basically and in over three years of widespread commercial availability of ecigs zero health problems have been discovered. It has helped thousands to quit smoking and appears to be set to be the popular alternative for people who don’t want to quit or can’t quit.

    Please don’t make people smoke because you haven’t researched the facts. More info here – vapersnetwork.org

  16. Fifi says:

    Health Canada also advises against using e-cigarettes (which aren’t legal to sell in Canada at this point).

    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2009_53-eng.php

    “They produce a vapour that resembles smoke and a glow that resembles the tip of a cigarette. They consist of a battery-powered delivery system that vapourizes and delivers a liquid chemical mixture that may be composed of various amounts of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals.

    Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance, and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant. Although these electronic smoking products may be marketed as a safer alternative to conventional tobacco products and, in some cases, as an aid to quitting smoking, electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction.”

    Of course, I’m sure the tobacco lobby or pharmaceutical companies aren’t very keen on them being legalized either.

    Allen Carr’s book should be mandatory reading for people trying to quit smoking. The ban on public smoking really seems to have done more to help people quit smoking than any device can – us humans tend to be very monkey see, monkey do. (Much as we like to think otherwise. The irony of cigarette advertising is that it’s almost always promoting addiction to cigarettes as a sign of being “independent”.)

  17. yogsodoth says:

    From Fifi’s Health Canada quote:

    [quote]Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance[/quote]

    But entirely legal. I am within my rights to consume it, as you are within your rights to consume caffeine, another highly addictive and toxic substance. I can buy 1:1 pharmaceutical nicotine solution without a Controlled Sibstances permit, but a drop of it will kill me. Explain the logic behind that, Health Canada.

    [quote]and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant.[/quote]

    For some people, in very high quantities and concentrations. It wouldn’t be allowed at concerts and theatre events if it was dangerous. The FDA and Health Canada recognize the chemical as safe, and Health Canada’s statement is misleading. E-cigs can also use food-grade vegetable glycerin for less irritation.

    [quote]Although these electronic smoking products may be marketed as a safer alternative to conventional tobacco products and, in some cases, as an aid to quitting smoking, electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction.[/quote]

    The missing statement here is, “Although all all available evidence suggests that those risks are several orders of magnitude lower then those of cigarette smoking”. The risk of nicotine poisoning is insignificant as it is in solution, with a maximum of 4mg nicotine per cartridge. 4mg is enough to make a child or a non-smoker ill, certainly not enough to permanently harm or kill anyone larger than a small child. An aspirin package contains enough medicine to seriously harm a child, yet you can buy them at the supermarket. Health Canada is once again being disingenuous.

    As a Canadian vaper I find Health Canada’s omission of known facts in the case of e-cigs particularly egregious. Health Canada’s strategy for reducing tobacco use is “quit or die” – a strategy which doesn’t make sense from an addiction OR public health viewpoint.

  18. windriven says:

    “They produce a vapour that resembles smoke and a glow that resembles the tip of a cigarette. They consist of a battery-powered delivery system that vapourizes and delivers a liquid chemical mixture that ‘may’ be composed of various amounts of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals.”

    Leave it to Fifi to weigh in with facile sophistry. ‘May’ is the operative word in this sentence. I suppose they ‘may’ contain strontium 90 or extract of eye of newt. But we base policy on what is, not what may be. And this gives us a much surer target to attack.

    The smart play is to either rigorously control the allowable co-agents so that making these things is prohibitively expensive, wrap them up in gnarly regulatory issues, beat them in court (the one cogent point Fifi made is that there may be powerful and well-funded forces who oppose e-cigarettes, or tax the bejesus out of them. Though I must admit that cigarettes are taxed outrageously in Europe yet cigarette smoking in some EU countries is still just short of ubiquitous.

    Banning nicotine is a non-starter. There are just too many powerful interests arrayed against that. The war is won by winning the battles, the battles are won by winning the engagements, the engagements are won by winning the skirmishes.

    If you’re going to win it all in one big putsch you’d better have more than god on your side.

  19. windriven says:

    @Kate

    This is a science blog. Don’t make a statement like: “Vaping is considered at least 99% safer than smoking” without attributing a source. If Kate considers ‘vaping’ 99% safer than smoking, no one here cares. That isn’t because we think you are a bad person. It is because we expect a higher standard of evidence.

    A little while ago Fifi, on the other side of the debate, alleged what e-cigarettes ‘may’ have. Same thing. Who cares? Tell us what they DO have.

    Show us a nice, long term, n=large RCT and you’ll get a whole lot of attention. Show us independent laboratory tests that show that only nicotine and water vapor come out, that the nicotine levels are comparable to or less than tobacco cigarettes, and the factory’s GMPs that assure that no other substance CAN be delivered. And show us that the exhaled vapor is absent your noxious drug. Then you’ll have something to talk about.

    Nicotine is a powerful – potentially fatal – drug. If people want to use it recreationally, I for one couldn’t care less. But I want to know my children aren’t breathing your excess nicotine and who knows what else.

  20. Joe Chill says:

    The bias of people sends them into bouts of hysteria, “OMG smokers found an alternate way to enjoy nicotine! They removed the carcinogenic problems, NoOoOoOoOo.”

    Electronic cigarette liquid is made with Propylene glycol, a food product we all ingest, inhale, inject, touch, daily or vegetable glycerin, again something we already ingest, etc…, and nicotine.

    The missed point.. And I will restate it again, has nothing to do with smoking or tobacco use. It’s about nicotine. What the delivery device looks like, or if it has an LED light on it so people know if it is on, or smells like your grandmother, is of no consequence. Stick to the science.

    At this point, the issues suggested, good and bad, to nicotine, are all hyperbole and presumption. Unless the science and legitimate studies are there to back them, touting opinions equates a nice fat ZERO. ( For either side of the isle.) The potential health detriments allocated to tobacco are exactly that, about tobacco use. It’s carcinogenic attributes are well known and well studied. These same said attributes WERE NOT applied to nicotine. Nicotine is the substance that people risked the cancer causative activity of smoking to obtain. That’s been removed. This is a lot of “cart before horse”.

    **As to Health Canada, the money obtained from tobacco use is a mega lottery win. Changing it up and losing that income puts a large dent in their pocket. The irony meter goes off when you can walk into any drugstore and purchase your Nicorette inhaler and inhale nicotine to your hearts content, yet smokers quitting tobacco to use an alternate inhaler is a banned.

  21. windriven says:

    @Joe Chill

    Umm…. horse hockey. Where and when do we routinely inhale propylene glycol?

    The MSDS states clearly that:

    “Toxic fumes are released in fire situations.” What happens in the event of a malfunction? Oh, what? Can’t happen? Defibrillators can fail. Dialysis machines can fail. Large Hadron Colliders can fail catastrophically. But not your silly plastic cigarettes?

    “Mists may cause irritation of upper respiratory tract.”

    “Repeated excessive ingestion may cause central nervous system effects.”

    This last is particularly disturbing because the lungs are a wonderful organ system for rapidly moving compounds into the blood stream because of the high surface area of the combined alveoli.

    And finally you said, “Unless the science and legitimate studies are there to back them, touting opinions equates a nice fat ZERO. ( For either side of the isle.)” Hear, hear. Perhaps you ought to take your own advice. You offered not a shred of evidence. And BTW aisle has an ‘a’ on the front. An ‘isle’ isle is a small island.

    You and your fellow drug addicts are welcome to poison yourselves IMHO. Just don’t foist your garbage off on others or give us some sanctimonious tripe about proof. You have made outrageous claims. Outrageous claims demand compelling proof.

    Let’s see it.

  22. Joe Chill says:

    @ Windriven

    You make some nice claims sir. I also hail your less than lackluster troll attempt. Grammar police for typos? Lol

    As a carrier in fragrance oils
    In smoke machines to make artificial smoke for use in firefighters’ training and theatrical productions.

    And in anything else that contains it that can enter the air you breathe.

    You are the one making claims, I am not debating facts. When they are available, I’ll do that. I am debating the pointless blather, which you perfectly displayed for the rest of us to enjoy. I also do not use e-cigarettes, so sadly your presumptive trolling gives way to dead air……………………

    Nice attempt though chief, lol.

  23. windriven says:

    You do not breath concentrated ‘fragrance oils.’
    Firefighters are not continually exposed to training smoke.
    And, well, you know those theater people.

    The claims made here are that the safety of e-cigarettes has not been demonstrated. That’s the way it works in the real world. I don’t get to market a new medical device – and do you dispute that this is a drug delivery system? – until I have proven safety and efficacy.

    So, Joe, the burden of proof sits squarely on you.

  24. CMN says:

    Windriven – You don’t need to prove that e-cigarettes are 100% safe in order to accept them as a viable alternative to smoking tobacco; you only need to prove that they are safer than smoking tobacco. And from the studies that have been done so far, of this we can be reasonably certain. In fact, barring some unforeseeable adverse effects of long-term inhalation of propylene glycol, or inadvertent contamination of e-cig liquid, there is little viable scientific doubt that the electronic cigarette is much, much safer than smoking tobacco. We cannot be certain of how much safer until we do the studies, but since we know how harmful inhaling the products of combustion is, it would be difficult to say that the ingredients in the e-cig pose anywhere near the same risk. As my post above stated, this is about harm reduction for smokers, not about finding a perfect solution. We choose to drive despite knowing the risks, but we put on our seatbelts to be a little bit safer. No one would argue the value of a seatbelt, but yet we are arguing the value of a safer way to smoke. The safer the e-cigs are, the better, and that is why I agree some regulation should be put in place to prevent contamination of the liquid, but other than that, it would be a public health loss for these to be taken off the market.

    I realize my e-cig faq link did not work properly the first time I posted it – here it is again: http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/ecigs.htm

  25. Joe Chill says:

    You should go to bed. Lol.

    It isn’t a medical device. You can only work with the facts and restrictions you have on hand. Nicotine is not a restricted medical product. Do you consider Coca-Cola a drug delivery device?

    I make no claims. The jury is yet out, in reality where I live. I don’t jump on the bandwagon touting hysteria for either side, you seem awful upset. Perhaps a nice cup of tea would be the ticket.

    So back at you , sir.

  26. Kate says:

    Propylene glycol is used in asthma inhalers as well as being used to administer medication for lung transplant patients. It has germ killing properties and is GRAS to eat.

    Just for you Windblown:

    E-cig study for metals – http://acceptablechoice.si/GeneralView.htm

    Toxicology report on pvliquid from e-cigs.co.uk – http://www.e-cigs.co.uk/docs/E249A.pdf

    EcoPure report – http://www.intellicig.com/images/pdf/ECOpureReport2009-04-14.pdf

    The Electronic Cigarette Co eliquid toxicology report – http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/tox1.pdf

    Gamucci eliquid toxicology report – http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/GamucciLabStudy.pdf

    A report on Johnson Creek pvlliquid – http://www.johnsoncreeksmokejuice.com/downloads/JCE_GCMS_Report.pdf

    Research that suggests no long-term harm from nicotine inhalation – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

    Study to Determine Presence of TSNAs in NJOY Vapor – http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=5

    Spikey’s collection of research about propylene glycol – http://www.vapersclub.com/pg.html

    Ruyan, eliquid analysis – http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

    Ruyan, NRT effectiveness – http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecig_effect-2.pdf

    Ruyan, summary of research – http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinBenchtopHandout.pdf

    SuperSmoker eliquid toxicology report – http://www.supersmokerjp.com/images/ToxicologylaboratoryTestResultsEnglishtranslatiion.pdf

    This is Dr Phillips who is a respected tobacco harm reduction advocate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXRRIgHq8pg

    Carl Phillips: “The health benefits of switching are almost exactly the same as the health benefits of quitting, and this applies to electronic cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine. If a smoker can manage to switch from smoking to one of those other products the benefits are approximately the same as quitting – they lower their cancer risk, they lower their cardiovascular disease risk, they get rid of acute symptoms of lung and airway problems, a risk that comes from smoking for pulmonary diseases and so forth. Switching is so close as good as quitting that from a health point of view there is no point in worrying about the difference…”
    http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/carl

    Dr Siegel, another respected harm reduction specialist – “… It doesn’t take a rocket toxicologist to recognize that electronic cigarettes have to be a safer alternative to cigarette smoking. Based on the laboratory testing that has been conducted, the presence of the product on the market for more than 3 years without any recognized adverse effects, the demonstrated absence (or presence at only trace levels) of carcinogens present in high concentration in cigarettes, and the absence in of any suspected toxin or carcinogen that has been identified and thought to cause disease, how could it be opined that switching back to traditional cigarettes from this product is a reasonable decision?…”
    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/fda-still-not-sure-that-smoking-is-any.html

    Another – Dr Laugesen says he’d recommend ecigs to anyone trying to quit smoking. http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Lifestyle/tabid/372/articleID/113909/cat/64/Default.aspx#video

    “During 2008-9 I have coordinated rigorous safety tests by 8 laboratories on the Ruyan e-cigarette, funded by Ruyan. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/coynews.htm Of over 50 priority tobacco smoke toxicants, none was found in any but trace quantity. Nicotine is safe used as medicine. Propylene glycol has been used on bedfast children in 1942-43 as an aerosol germicide by University of Chicago researchers, without adverse effect. All up, we find the Ruyan e-cigarette safe in the common meaning of that word, and much safer than smoking tobacco. The FDA and other drug regulators will hopefully keep the e-cigarettes on sale (as in the UK), while further research can be conducted and suitable approvals applied for. Simply banning e-cigarettes will simply consign thousands of e-smokers back to smoking tobacco and an early death. That would be crazy.”
    Murray Laugesen public health physician “ Christchurch, New Zealand
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02cigarette.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=electronic%20cigarettes&st=cse

    “E-cigarettes: harmless inhaled or exhaled

    “No second hand smoke
    … 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.

    “Exhaled breath after e-cigarette use has been tested for CO only. No increase in CO was found.

    “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.

    “No harm found in e-cigarette mist…

    “… Propylene glycol is harmless – it is used in making theatrical fog and as an ingredient in soaps, personal lubricants and intravenous medicines.”
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ECigsExhaledSmoke.htm

    Cancer risk reduced by e-cigarettes
    “… E-cigarette use reduces risk of cancer by supplanting the smoking of tobacco cigarettes

    “Using e-cigarettes INSTEAD of smoking tobacco cigarettes is bound to reduce the risks of lung cancer, because the cancer-causing gases such as 1,3 butadiene found in the smoke of all cigarette brands, are no longer inhaled.

    “Switching to e-cigarettes with nicotine continued, can be expected to reduce lung cancer risk the same as altogether quitting cigarettes without e-cigarettes…”
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/cancerrisk.htm

    Dr David Baron:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRr8KubdhCA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCiq2kafe8

    Let me know if there’s anything else you want to know and I’ll try to find references for you.

  27. yogsodoth says:

    @windriven: The burden of proof on propylene glycol is in. It has a GRAS rating from the FDA. And your logic regarding drug delivery systems would be accurate, if it weren’t for the fact that tobacco cigarettes, another drug delivery system, don’t have to prove safety and efficacy (in fact, they are PROVEN to be harmful, and are still on the market – because smokers, as addicts, will riot if they are taken off the market). Nicotine, as a legal recreational drug, is not subject to the same requirements as a medicinal drug delivery system, nor should it be… unless you also feel that coffee should be subject to said restrictions, as it is a similar stimulant with similar effects; it can also cause health problems like hypertension, arrhythmia, tachycardia, etc. (and there is growing evidence it accelerates the development of vascular disease).
    I would further suggest that lung irritation is not a health factor. As a person who has used both traditional tobacco and e-cigarettes, I can assure you it causes less irritation of my own mucous membranes than smoking. Incidentally, it also causes less irritation than the nicotine inhalers currently sold by Pfizer (which produce no vapour, but which DO use propylene glycol as a matrix for the nicotine). In any case, the vapour after leaving a user’s lungs is so diffuse as to be nigh-indetectable, and is certainly not irritating to persons in the area. You might as well protest to someone that the air freshener they use is exposing you to dangerous, irritiating aromatics, or that their perfume or cologne is bothering you.
    In regards to your thoughts regarding failure, the heating element and atomizer of an e-cigarette have a built-in flaw – if they overheat, the filament burns out and becomes useless (planned obsolescence, anyone?). Overheating in this case means going over 80 degrees Celsius, well below the flash point of the materials in the e-cig’s construction. It will not “burst into flame” – and even if it did, it would emit less volatile hydrocarbons and carcinogens than you would starting your car. I myself have burnt out two elements (through excessive dragging) – the outer casing of the e-cig does not even get uncomfortably hot to hold when this happens.
    You make a point about safety – these devices are not “safe”, but then neither is putting mayonnaise or butter on your sandwich, or eating smoked meat, from a public health point of view. The point is that they are far, far LESS harmful, both to their users and those around them, than cigarettes. The point is not for them to be “safe” – the point is that they are “safer”. Safer than cigarettes, safer than chewing tobacco, and much safer than getting a whiff of car exhaust or campfire smoke.
    Demands that the devices be proven “safe” will be met with absolute derision from the smoking community. Such demands are illogical, given that the far-more-harmful alternative is widely available. You can’t even prove a cup of coffee is safe – you might spill it and burn your lap.

  28. yogsodoth says:

    @Joe: I would also say the irony meter goes off when Health Canada makes large amounts of cash from people smoking. From my perspective, that makes them a Crown entity reliant on tobacco revenue (which, in Canada, is just a nice pile of un-earmarked money, NOT money specifically targeted at reducing tobacco use).

  29. Kate says:

    Propylene glycol is used in asthma inhalers as well as being used to administer medication for lung transplant patients. It has germ killing properties and is GRAS to eat.

    E-cig study for metals – http://acceptablechoice.si/GeneralView.htm

    Toxicology report on pvliquid from e-cigs.co.uk – http://www.e-cigs.co.uk/docs/E249A.pdf

    EcoPure report – http://www.intellicig.com/images/pdf/ECOpureReport2009-04-14.pdf

    The Electronic Cigarette Co eliquid toxicology report – http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/tox1.pdf

    Gamucci eliquid toxicology report – http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/GamucciLabStudy.pdf

    A report on Johnson Creek pvlliquid – http://www.johnsoncreeksmokejuice.com/downloads/JCE_GCMS_Report.pdf

    Research that suggests no long-term harm from nicotine inhalation – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

    Study to Determine Presence of TSNAs in NJOY Vapor – http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=5

    Spikey’s collection of research about propylene glycol – http://www.vapersclub.com/pg.html

    Ruyan, eliquid analysis – http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

    Ruyan, NRT effectiveness – http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecig_effect-2.pdf

    Ruyan, summary of research – http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinBenchtopHandout.pdf

    SuperSmoker eliquid toxicology report – http://www.supersmokerjp.com/images/ToxicologylaboratoryTestResultsEnglishtranslatiion.pdf

    This is Dr Phillips who is a respected tobacco harm reduction advocate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXRRIgHq8pg

    Carl Phillips: “The health benefits of switching are almost exactly the same as the health benefits of quitting, and this applies to electronic cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine. If a smoker can manage to switch from smoking to one of those other products the benefits are approximately the same as quitting – they lower their cancer risk, they lower their cardiovascular disease risk, they get rid of acute symptoms of lung and airway problems, a risk that comes from smoking for pulmonary diseases and so forth. Switching is so close as good as quitting that from a health point of view there is no point in worrying about the difference…”
    http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/carl

    Dr Siegel, another respected harm reduction specialist – “… It doesn’t take a rocket toxicologist to recognize that electronic cigarettes have to be a safer alternative to cigarette smoking. Based on the laboratory testing that has been conducted, the presence of the product on the market for more than 3 years without any recognized adverse effects, the demonstrated absence (or presence at only trace levels) of carcinogens present in high concentration in cigarettes, and the absence in of any suspected toxin or carcinogen that has been identified and thought to cause disease, how could it be opined that switching back to traditional cigarettes from this product is a reasonable decision?…”
    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/fda-still-not-sure-that-smoking-is-any.html

    Another – Dr Laugesen says he’d recommend ecigs to anyone trying to quit smoking. http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Lifestyle/tabid/372/articleID/113909/cat/64/Default.aspx#video

    “During 2008-9 I have coordinated rigorous safety tests by 8 laboratories on the Ruyan e-cigarette, funded by Ruyan. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/coynews.htm Of over 50 priority tobacco smoke toxicants, none was found in any but trace quantity. Nicotine is safe used as medicine. Propylene glycol has been used on bedfast children in 1942-43 as an aerosol germicide by University of Chicago researchers, without adverse effect. All up, we find the Ruyan e-cigarette safe in the common meaning of that word, and much safer than smoking tobacco. The FDA and other drug regulators will hopefully keep the e-cigarettes on sale (as in the UK), while further research can be conducted and suitable approvals applied for. Simply banning e-cigarettes will simply consign thousands of e-smokers back to smoking tobacco and an early death. That would be crazy.”
    Murray Laugesen public health physician “ Christchurch, New Zealand
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02cigarette.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=electronic%20cigarettes&st=cse

    “E-cigarettes: harmless inhaled or exhaled
    No second hand smoke
    … 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.

    “Exhaled breath after e-cigarette use has been tested for CO only. No increase in CO was found.

    “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.

    “No harm found in e-cigarette mist…

    “… Propylene glycol is harmless – it is used in making theatrical fog and as an ingredient in soaps, personal lubricants and intravenous medicines.”
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ECigsExhaledSmoke.htm

    Cancer risk reduced by e-cigarettes
    “… E-cigarette use reduces risk of cancer by supplanting the smoking of tobacco cigarettes

    “Using e-cigarettes INSTEAD of smoking tobacco cigarettes is bound to reduce the risks of lung cancer, because the cancer-causing gases such as 1,3 butadiene found in the smoke of all cigarette brands, are no longer inhaled.

    “Switching to e-cigarettes with nicotine continued, can be expected to reduce lung cancer risk the same as altogether quitting cigarettes without e-cigarettes…”
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/cancerrisk.htm

    Dr David Baron:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRr8KubdhCA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCiq2kafe8

  30. Fifi says:

    I didn’t “allege” anything, I merely shared Health Canada’s post from their site about e-cigarettes. It’s kind of creepy that people have already constructed a slang around e-cigarettes and that the makers are heavily marketing them to kids.

  31. windriven says:

    “Nicotine is not a restricted medical product. ”

    Wrong again, Joe Camel. Try to get a Nicotrol inhaler without a prescription. It seems to me there is a great deal of similarity between the inhaler and the e-cig.

    A drug delivery system is a medical device. Nicotine is a drug, you’ll find it in the pharmacopoeia. The e-cigarette delivers the drug to the smoker’s (vaporer’s?) lungs, very much as an anesthesia machine delivers Suprane. Therefore it is a drug (nicotine) delivery system (it introduces nicotine laden vapors into your lungs). You can call a donkey’s tail a fifth leg but “in reality where I live,” it’s still a tail.

    You continue to avoid the actual issues at hand, one presumes because you have nothing substantive to offer:

    1. The delivery system has not been proven safe;
    2. Nicotine has not, as far as I can quickly find, been proven safe for long term inhalation exposure;
    3. It has not been proven that the delivery system does not emit substances other than nicotine, propylene glycol and, I presume, water;
    4. It has not been demonstrated that non-vaporing bystanders will not be exposed to a drug they do not wish to use.

    The burden of proof is on the manufacturers. They are the ones introducing the device into interstate commerce. This is the way the real world works. To use an argument of reductio ad absurdum, if I wanted to sell a device to vaporize Coca-Cola for inhalation (presumably to punch up that caffeine rush), I would have the same obligation to prove safety and efficacy. I would be challenged by FDA, I would lose, and FDA would prevail, probably even in Judge Leon’s court.

  32. Fifi says:

    If people want to use dorky fake cigarettes in private, or any type of dorky drug delivery system for that matter, I don’t object. It’s the marketing them as a way to avoid smoking bans, marketing them to kids and marketing them as being a safe alternative to cigarettes and a means to quit smoking without offering real evidence that I find problematic. I’m for across the board legalization of drugs, I just don’t want to be forced to take other people’s drug of choice if it’s not mine. In regards to quitting smoking, they’d be useless since they’re reinforcing the compulsive hand to mouth aspect and still delivering nicotine and not in a way that’s easy to slowly reduce. If anything, they reinforce the addictive aspects and compulsive physical habits of smoking. It’s interesting to watch the propaganda overdrive here though and I’d be highly skeptical of any “stop smoking” site that promotes them as such (it’s an obvious marketing thing to do and the same marketing strategy used by supplement companies that target people suffering from cancer).

    The whole trying to be all techno with the “e-cigarette” thing – as if they’re digital or something – is just hilarious. As is the fact that they look like cigarettes, down to the glowing tip. Dorkorama. The cool kids will still smoke real cigarettes, the romantic rebel aspects of smoking can’t be replaced by something so dorky. Though underage kids will probably get a hold of e-cigarettes and get addicted that way. The market for these thing is all the middle aged and older people who’d like to quit and would quit if they could actually face up to their addiction (and their issues underlying their addiction).

  33. yogsodoth says:

    @windriven: Bunk.

    1. The delivery system has not been proven safe;

    It does not need to be proven safe. It needs to be proven safer than a traditional cigarette, a “drug delivery device” that is already on the market – and it already has been. The New Zealand study, the FDA, and the BMJ all agree that it is safer than cigarette smoking. They don’t use that specific wording, since they don’t wish to be seen as promoting nicotine use, but each of them concedes that cigarette smoking is much more harmful. The BMJ and FDA continue to embrace the fallacy that these devices have to be “safe”. They don’t, because there are plenty of things on the market which deliver pharmaceutically active components which are not considered drug delivery devices. Nicotine is not medication, as it serves no medical purpose other than cessation therapy caused by addiction to itself.

    2. Nicotine has not, as far as I can quickly find, been proven safe for long term inhalation exposure;

    Nicotine has not been proven safe for anything (in fact, it’s not safe, period). It doesn’t need to be, since it’s not a controlled substance, and is considered relatively harmless in small doses (1mg – 6mg). It can be bought in 1:1 molar solution without a controlled substances permit, and that stuff will kill you if you spill a drop on yourself. It can be bought in any drug store off the shelf in “safe” concentrations, at least in Canada. Caffeine has also not been proven safe, and yet you can buy it in pill form or concentrated molar solution (which will also kill you if you get a drop on yourself). Same with Aspirin, Tylenol, etc., etc. ALL of these are unsafe – they can cause liver damage, renal failure, and other problems with overuse. And yet I can buy as much as I want, any time I want. Am I capable of being trusted to meter my own dose with these substances, but not with nicotine? Why not?

    3. It has not been proven that the delivery system does not emit substances other than nicotine, propylene glycol and, I presume, water;

    See the New Zealand study and the FDA mini-study for proof of this. The FDA found substances considered carcinogenic in some vapour – in amounts too small to be considered dangerous.

    4. It has not been demonstrated that non-vaporing bystanders will not be exposed to a drug they do not wish to use.

    See the New Zealand study and almost any smoking study, as well as the pharmacology of nicotine, which you so handily mentioned. Salt of nicotine+mucous membrane = nigh-total absorption. Less than .01% of the nicotine in the dose will escape to plague innocent bystanders – an amount considered pharmaceutically insignificant.

    Math exercise: 0.01% of 1mg (a very large amount for a single puff) would be 0.00001 grams, dispersed over about 4 litres of air (average smoker lung capacity), or 4.8 grams of air (1.2 grams per litre of air at sea level) equals roughly 2-3 parts per million of nicotine by mass, per vaper in the area.

    So, if you were in a crowd of 20 vapers at the bar, you would be exposed to roughly 40-60 parts per million of nicotine close up. Assuming the bar is small and only has 90000 cubic feet (2548516.19 litres) of breathing space, this would further diffuse the concentration to about 2-3 parts per billion, meaning you would be getting about one-fifth of one MICROgram per breath. You would be exposed to 1mg of nicotine over the course of about 110 minutes (at 44 breaths per minute) if concentrations remained constant.

    Unfortunately (for vapers) nicotine salts have the annoying habit of evaporating out of their solution at a high rate (a problem avoided by using propylene glycol), and so would diffuse faster than normal PPG or water vapour once airborne in suspension.

    Bear in mind that our root amount, 1mg per puff, would be an extremely high amount for a single lungfull, and that most bars are fairly well-ventilated as they have targets for air flowthrough they must meet by law.

    The point remains: The dangers of secondhand smoke are not even due to nicotine. They are due to high levels of CO and thousands of the toxic and carcinogenic byproducts of burning tobacco (some of which only require a microgram of exposure per day to increase rates of cancer significantly). E-cigarettes do not contain the vast majority of these chemicals, therefore they are much, much safer than tobacco smoke.

    @Fifi: Dorkorama it may be. The fact remains, I can use a vape in a public place, in a restaurant, anywhere I want, without fear of legal repercussions. The law specifically speaks to “second-hand smoke” and “combustion”. No smoke is involved, therefore under the law, I am free to do as I please. Anyone who tries to eject me is going to have an argument on their hands, and possibly a lawsuit. As for your remarks about “facing up to addiction”… are you aware of the miserable failure rate for smoking cessation (both assisted and unassisted)?

  34. jeffhyat says:

    @Windriven

    “Wrong again, Joe Camel. Try to get a Nicotrol inhaler without a prescription.” It seems to me there is a great deal of similarity between the inhaler and the e-cig.”

    The difference is in the intent. The intent of the product is not to aid in smoking cessation as the nicotrol inhaler has been designed and marketed as. The e cig is not intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, which is the FDA’s definition of a drug. It is simply a smoking alternative and should fall in the same classification as similar tobacco products that serve the same purpose. Which is what the judge is apparently thinking.

    1. The delivery system has not been proven safe;

    - No one is claiming it is safe. The claim is it is safer than cigarettes. According to most of the data above your post it is fair to say it is.

    2. Nicotine has not, as far as I can quickly find, been proven safe for long term inhalation exposure;

    - The product is for long term smokers who are looking for an alternative. These are people that have already been inhaling cigarette smoke, which contains nicotine in it, for most of their lives.

    3. It has not been proven that the delivery system does not emit substances other than nicotine, propylene glycol and, I presume, water;

    - Again, read the links posted above your post. Njoy released an entire study testing the emitted aerosol vapor and it resulted in being completely carcinogenic free.

    “To use an argument of reductio ad absurdum, if I wanted to sell a device to vaporize Coca-Cola for inhalation (presumably to punch up that caffeine rush), I would have the same obligation to prove safety and efficacy. I would be challenged by FDA, I would lose, and FDA would prevail, probably even in Judge Leon’s court.”

    Maybe not. For if in your absurd world there was a similar product that, by the way can not be banned even though it will kill you, vaporizes your cola but also vaporizes the aluminum can it is housed in. You get a nice dosage of toxic chemicals far beyond the chemicals your new cola vaporizer offers. Then maybe the regulatory authority (in this case Judge Leon) would use some common sense and let the lesser of the two evils also fall into this untouchable, unbannable, invincible category that cigarettes are currently in.

    The fact is:
    Cigarettes Kill You (The FDA does not have the authority to ban them)

    Electronic Cigarettes are the functional equivalent of cigarettes
    (So if they are harmful or not why should it matter? The FDA shouldn’t have authority to ban them just like they don’t with cigarettes)

  35. Kate says:

    Nicotine has therapeutic properties, has been found to help prevent Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimers disease; it can be used for treatment of ADD, schizophrenia, psychosis, depression, etc.

    Clean nicotine, ie: not delivered with smoke is not known to be harmful although it can be a stimulant in high doses.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

    A spoon is a drug delivery device, so is a coffee cup. A cigarette delivers a drug and a wine glass.

    Nicotine is not the problem, I enjoy mine and will continue to take it to self medicate my schizophrenia and prevent other illnesses.

    The problem with nicotine is that it’s traditionally been delivered with smoke or ineffective NRTs to prevent smoking. Now we can have recreational and therapeutic nicotine in a clean and effective way with vaping. Don’t kid yourselves that there’s ever going to be a world without addictions, medications and fun. Chill and enjoy the ride, there are enough people around who want to crush innocent pleasures.

  36. windriven says:

    Ah the tobacco lobby speaks loudly if incoherently. I have rarely seen such a collection of stuff and nonsense. “Citations” that are propaganda pieces from e-smoking sites, convoluted arguments that the sky is green, sanctimonious (if unsubstantiated) pronouncements that e-cigs are ‘safer’ than cigarettes and are intended only for the betterment of mankind, kvetching about the Canadian government growing rich on tobacco money.

    But none of you seem to have the intellectual honesty to simply admit that tobacco has bought and paid for a loophole that, so far at least, has blocked FDA from regulating tobacco products and these e-smoking devices as the drug and delivery systems that they are.

    If a nicotine fix is what you’re after there are patches aplenty. Using them does not expose others to whatever residuals you blow out. If this is just a safer alternative for those who lack the fortitude to quit then why are these things marketed in ‘flavors’ such a s chocolate? Clearly, so that another generation of suckers can get hooked.

    Don’t urinate in my shoe and tell me I’ve stepped in a puddle. A legal loophole bought and paid for by the same tobacco money that you decry the Canadian government for receiving IS NOT SCIENCE and it is certainly not the regulatory norm. Nicotine is an addictive drug and your little plastic tubes are drug delivery devices. To claim otherwise is idiotic. The fact that Congress, its pockets bulging with tobacco money, gave tobacco a get-out-of-jail-free card says nothing about the science, the safety, the effort to hook successive generations, or normal regulatory processes.

  37. Scott says:

    Do you also hate the smell of concert fog machines? You honestly prefer the smoke of a real tobacco cigarette to propylene glycol vapour? Because I’ve never met a non-smoker who does. Not once.

    Never smelled a concert fog machine. But everyone who’s expressed an opinion on the ones sold in the kiosk I’m referring to agrees that they utterly reek, worse than a normal cigarette. (Though it doesn’t seem to stick to clothes as normal cigarette smoke does.)

    Perhaps they’re a different version than the ones you’re experienced with.

  38. Fifi says:

    Kate – “Nicotine has therapeutic properties, has been found to help prevent Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimers disease; it can be used for treatment of ADD, schizophrenia, psychosis, depression, etc.”

    Really, those are some might big claims not backed up by evidence in your post. And, essentially, they’re irrelevant because we’re talking about recreational tobacco use and use by addicts, not a prescribed medical use.

    As I’ve already said, I’m for legalization of all drugs and have no interest in controlling what adults put in their own bodies. I agree, there will always be people who can’t use drugs recreationally and become addicted – they need to be given help or at least not have their lives made more hellish. Some people can smoke recreationally – they’re not the ones who can’t control their addictions, who want to be able to publicly smoke/vape (ah, the slang of addicts and the pretense that you’re not inhaling crap into your lungs if you don’t call it smoking). Nor are they likely to need to pretend that if they use e-cigarettes their addiction is healthy (it’s a bit like pretending that using clean syringes means your heroine addiction isn’t really that much of a problem). The problem is, e-cigarettes are being marketed to children, as stop smoking devices and in other unethical ways that promote addiction rather than simply being fun recreational drug delivery devices. They’re not being marketed as wacky bongs to be brought out for parties.

    Now I’m off to check the temperature in Hell since I find myself essentially agreeing with Windriven here on how they’re being marketed and the propagandizing/marketing going on here.

  39. daedalus2u says:

    I think the legal arguments made by the proponents are disingenuous. They argue that it isn’t a “drug”, but is “tobacco”, so the FDA can’t regulate it as a drug. But they are not paying taxes on it as if it was tobacco.

    If they are selling it as a tobacco product, they should be paying taxes on it like it is a tobacco product.

    The only people who get “pleasure” from using nicotine are those people who are addicted to it. Non-addicted individuals derive no “pleasure” from using nicotine. “Pleasure” is derived only after they have become addicted, are experiencing withdrawal, and take more nicotine to counter the adverse effects of withdrawal.

    The best way to counter this is to tax it the same as all other tobacco products are taxed. The various taxing agencies have the authority to impose these taxes retroactively. There is a $1.01 federal tax per pack on cigarettes. A cigarette pack contains 20 cigarettes with about 1 mg nicotine per cigarette. That nicotine liquid should have a federal tax of $0.05 per mg, or $50.00 per gram.

  40. Kate says:

    Personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations to question the integrity of someone you disagree with is hardly a professional scientific approach.

    This is supposed to be a discussion about ecigs I believe, not tobacco.

    I am an addict, I enjoy the ritual of smoking but not the health risks. I find vapour a fully satisfying and acceptable alternative to smoking that has no proven health risks.

  41. Fifi says:

    Also, in Canada at least, tobacco IS highly regulated. Just like alchohol is. Both are considered addictive drugs. You can’t sell them to minors. You can’t advertise in certain mediums. You can’t use tobacco in a smoked form in public places where you’d be subjecting others to the substance, etc.

  42. Kate says:

    What’s the point with the kids examples? I don’t give a toss about anybodies kids, if they can’t be decent parents that’s not my problem, such people shouldn’t be allowed to breed if they’re going to ruin the party for everybody else.

  43. Fifi says:

    Kate – “I am an addict, I enjoy the ritual of smoking but not the health risks.”

    Does this mean you support legalization of all drugs and access to clean needles and safe injection sites for all addicts? Or do you think your addiction is special.

  44. Kate says:

    I don’t think victimless acts such as informed drug use are crimes and as such should not have legal penalties. Education, alternatives and support are far better ways to discourage unhealthy behaviours.

  45. windriven says:

    THREE CHEERS FOR DAEDALUS2U!

    Damn, I suggested earlier that one way to get a handle on this was to tax the bejesus out of it. But clueless as a lamb, I never bothered to tie it to existing taxes on cigarettes! I have a friend who is a state senator here in WA. I’m going to have a chat with him about this. The WA tax on a pack of cigarettes is a whopping $2.025! Taking your arithmetic at face value that would amount to roughly $110 per gram for the nicotine in nico-juice.

    Joe Camel and his acolytes may yet come to find cocaine a cheaper fix.

  46. Kate says:

    Gosh, you’re a real good health campaigner, bravo.

  47. daedalus2u says:

    The really good thing (?) about the tax laws is that they are retroactive to when you first sold the stuff, and ignorance about the need to collect the tax is no excuse for non-payment. All the nicotine that the makers of e-cigarettes have sold as “tobacco” is subject to the various taxes. Retroactively. The longer they go on selling it, the larger their tax liability will be. I think there might even be penalties for willful non-payment of taxes. Maybe even prison terms.

    It also puts the tobacco companies on the government’s side. If smoked tobacco is going to be able to compete in the marketplace, it has to have the same tax structure as e-cigarettes.

    Selling alcohol for use in devices so it could be inhaled would never be accepted as making it exempt from tax laws.

  48. windriven says:

    Kate,
    You will probably be surprised to know that many of us have strong libertarian impulses. I, for one, actually believe that competent adults should have access to nearly all drugs other than antibiotics and anti-virals. But concomitant with freedom comes responsibility so I also believe that penalties for using substances in ways that endanger others should be prosecuted vigorously.

    My objection to e-smoking (and tobacco, for that matter) is that these industries are trying to establish a different set of rules for themselves than the rest of us play by. That is their unfortunate right under our political system (just recently strengthened by SCOTUS). The fact that congresspeople and senators can be bought so cheaply to provide special exemptions for products that kill millions shames me deeply. But those are the rules. You can pout in the corner or you can try to turn them to your advantage and act.

    Those of us on this side of the issue lack the organization and funding to meet Big Smoke head on. So you choose the battles that you can fight and sometimes win. Right now states are desperate for cash. My guess is that they will embrace taxing these ‘cigarette equivalents.’

  49. windriven says:

    @Kate

    “What’s the point with the kids examples? I don’t give a toss about anybodies kids, if they can’t be decent parents that’s not my problem, such people shouldn’t be allowed to breed if they’re going to ruin the party for everybody else.”

    Kate, I would hope that this was said in a moment of passion and does not reflect your considered opinion. Raising children is a difficult responsibility without drug peddlars enticing children with candied drugs. Following your reasoning society has no right to prevent cocaine dealers from selling their drug mixed in Kool-Aid.

    You are, by your own admission, addicted to nicotine. Do you believe that there is an ethical excuse for marketing addictive drugs to children?

  50. micheleinmichigan says:

    Kateon 21 Jan 2010 at 11:30 am

    What’s the point with the kids examples? I don’t give a toss about anybodies kids, if they can’t be decent parents that’s not my problem, such people shouldn’t be allowed to breed if they’re going to ruin the party for everybody else.

    Oh sure, as a parent I’m completely cool with corporations using public airwaves, billboard space, supermarket space, etc to market addictive, dangerous substances to my kids, so they can make a buck. The important thing is that YOU can party.

    Here’s the thing. U.S. – democracy, (flawed, sure) inhabited by lots of parents who vote (and sit on juries). Every once in a while we get it into our heads that we not willing to take additional time protecting our kids from a hazard just so someone else can have a house in bermuda (or party for that matter) Go figure.

    As to legal addictive drugs. I have to say U.S. drug policy is incredibly inconsistent now. I am not for legalizing crack, heroin, etc. Because I’ve seen enough addicts to feel they don’t have a choice in using (legal drugs too). I also don’t believe in the system we have that criminalizes drug use and addiction. I believe a more fully developed (SB) mental health and rehab services would be much more effective than prisons. But, my opinion is NOT fully formed, I find it very difficult to predict what system would create the best outcomes.

  51. Calli Arcale says:

    windriven:

    A drug delivery system is a medical device. Nicotine is a drug, you’ll find it in the pharmacopoeia.

    But cigarettes are not presently regulated as drugs, are they? And there are other drug components which are also sold in non-drug conditions. Caffeine and alcohol come to mind. Active ingredients, but in some conditions regulated as food, not pharmaceuticals.

    Nicotrol is regulated as a drug. This isn’t solely because it contains nicotine, but because it is sold as a smoking cessation device. That’s a medical claim, and makes it a medical device. The e-cigarettes, if sold just as another form of nicotine delivery, aren’t medical devices.

    I do think that since they are novel, they do need to prove their merits to the FDA. I’m ambivalent about who is the appropriate regulatory body to oversee that, and what is the appropriate regulatory context.

  52. jeffhyat says:

    @daedalus2u

    The purpose of the taxation on tobacco products is to curb their usage because they are considered dangerous. The whole point of taxation of tobacco is in essence to protect the general public from the dangers of smoking. Unless someone can prove with FACTS that e-cigs are equally as dangerous without using biased propaganda, then why should they fall into this same taxation category?

    In-fact using this logic (and once proven relatively safe) they should be not only have a lower tax rate but should be mandated by health insurance companies or by the government to curb more dangerous tobacco usage.

    They should be in the same category as tobacco because of it’s functional equivalent but if proven to be safer, than it should not fall into the tax category specifically designated to curb usage.

    Here is a study with performed by Njoy testing the toxicology of the aerosol vapor – Results: no known carcinogens are found within the vapor –
    http://www.njoythefreedom.com/contactcommerce/images/press_releases/Response%20to%20the%20FDA%20Summary.pdf

    Here is the study regarding the Ruyan cartridge test:
    Results: Much safer than traditional cigarettes
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

    Why are these studies on e cigarettes being overlooked? They are clearly scientific based.

  53. Zoe237 says:

    Huh, looks like e-cigarettes are more controversial than abortion. Who knew? I’ve never even heard of them.

  54. windriven says:

    CalliArcale

    The difference is that the tobacco industry side-stepped normal regulatory protocols and achieved special status for their products akin to placebo drugs – and nicotine is no placebo. There is no special ‘out’ for caffeine makers or for alcohol makers. In fact FDA is currently looking into regulating caffeine-laden alcoholic beverages.

    “The e-cigarettes, if sold just as another form of nicotine delivery, aren’t medical devices”

    And this lies at the heart of Judge Leon’s ruling. It traces its way back to the old ‘out’ given to homeopaths and other quacks. But as Daedalus2u brilliantly observed, if they are just like cigarettes they should be taxed just like cigarettes.

    There are holes in the law. The law is a constantly evolving body. People of all stripes can legitimately work to influence the direction that the law takes. The tobacco lobby has done this quite successfully. Shouldn’t those who oppose their hiding behind legal loopholes work to promote their points of view?

    I find myself in a most uncomfortable position on this because I actually believe that smokers and vaporers should be free to indulge themselves in private surroundings where others aren’t exposed to the drug. I also deeply object to marketing products like this in ways that are likely to attract children.

    And as a final word, don’t forget that GRAS is not the same as Always Recognized As Safe. Regulations on covered chemicals are always subject to change.

  55. windriven says:

    @Zoe237

    But dangling foreskins still take the prize.

  56. Fifi says:

    “But cigarettes are not presently regulated as drugs, are they?”

    Actually, both cigarettes and alcohol are regulated as drugs across North America – recreational ones and not pharmaceutical ones but drugs none the less. Laws vary around North America but there are laws everywhere around who can sell them, about selling and marketing them to minors, and where one can consume them.

    zoe – Well there’s lots of money at stake here so there are people with vested interests in manipulating public perception. Plus we’re talking about an addictive substance so people who are addicted to cigarettes will be pretty defensive and desperate about getting a fix and access to what they’re addicted to. It’s pretty easy to con an addict!

  57. daedalus2u says:

    Alcohol and tobacco were taxed long before they were known to be harmful. The primary purpose of taxes is to raise revenues for what ever entity is doing the taxing.

    Addictive substances are always harmful simply because they are additive. Any nicotine delivery system is always harmful because nicotine is always addictive.

    e-cigarettes are just as addictive as regular cigarettes. To me that makes them just as dangerous. Maybe even more dangerous because addiction is a less obvious danger than is lung cancer. Lung cancer usually takes a long time to happen, addiction can happen very quickly.

    Someone addicted to the nicotine in e-cigarettes is just as addicted as someone addicted to the nicotine in regular cigarettes.

    Someone addicted to nicotine from e-cigarettes doesn’t get to become non-addicted if their supply of e-cigarettes becomes unavailable. What if the suppliers of e-cigarettes jack up the price by 10x? Will nicotine addicts stop? No, because they are addicted. What if they are unavailable? Nicotine addicts will switch to smoked tobacco because they don’t have a choice, they are addicted.

    I consider it unacceptable for addictive substances to be available without restriction. That seems to be the position of the makers of e-cigarettes, that restrictions on tobacco don’t apply, and so they should be allowed to sell them to anyone. Right now they say they are choosing to not sell them to children, but without regulations, are we supposed to just “trust” them? Trust someone who is knowingly selling an addictive substance?

  58. Basiorana says:

    I would worry that because they are unregulated, adulterants might sneak into the oil. If they were regulated and the contents of the oil carefully watched, I hope people start using them– less chance of arson-related fires, no litter, and I’ve heard they don’t stink up clothes or interiors like smoke. Are they healthy? No. I cannot possibly believe they are healthy. Whether they are MORE healthy for the consumer or not is up for debate, but I’m relatively sure they will be more healthy and less offensive for second-hand smokers.

    However, they should be even more carefully kept away from kids and advertising should be restricted. Around here they are marketed to college-age hipsters but I can see the appeal for kids. I also think they need to apply the same rules for flavorings as apply to regular cigarettes, and tax it appropriately. Children can’t even buy nicotine GUM (I know, I had to buy some for a 16-year-old smoker to help her quit), and there’s no way this stuff is safer than that.

  59. jeffhyat says:

    @daedalus2u

    I was not inferring that they should not be taxed at all. I was also not implying that tobacco hasn’t been taxed before it was known to be harmful.

    However the reason for the “surge” in taxation upon tobacco is because our government believes this will curb people from using the product.

    An example is:
    “Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, and Sen. Allen Christensen, R-Ogden, are reprising perennial efforts to raise one of the lowest tobacco tax rates in the country — 69.5 cents on a pack of cigarettes — high enough to make people think twice about lighting up —– “Increasing the cost is the single most effective way to reduce use,” he said.”

    Why should a device that is functionally equivalent to tobacco but doesn’t inflict the same danger also be subject to such strict taxation? It would completely defeat their intention of reducing the dangerous risk of using tobacco.

    Lastly no one is asking for the product to be unregulated. In fact many e cig companies feel it is fair to regulate the product. The whole manufacturing process and the blending of the e liquid should be completely regulated to insure quality control. Many companies have began selling american e liquid which use strictly FDA approved and USP grade ingredients, which is a great step in the right direction.

  60. jeffhyat says:

    @daedauls2u

    You stated:
    “e-cigarettes are just as addictive as regular cigarettes. To me that makes them just as dangerous. ”

    To you? That sounds like an opinion to me. Let’s talk facts. The fact is addiction is NOT the reason cigarettes are so dangerous. It obviously makes the situation worse, but the reason cigarettes are so dangerous because you are inhaling combustible smoke laced with 4,000 known chemicals 40 of which are known to be carcinogenic.

    You stated:
    “Maybe even more dangerous because addiction is a less obvious danger than is lung cancer. Lung cancer usually takes a long time to happen, addiction can happen very quickly.”

    My father is addicted to Diet Pepsi… Is this more dangerous than lung cancer? Didn’t think so.

    It seems to be your not getting the point. Your out against any company selling something that is addictive. Well you know what? Alcohol is extremely addictive, pain medications are addictive, Mountain Dew is addictive, coffee is addictive, food is addictive, sex is addictive… If this is going to be your issue with the product then why aren’t you going against these other industries?

  61. jeffhyat says:

    @Windriven

    You stated:

    “The difference is that the tobacco industry side-stepped normal regulatory protocols and achieved special status for their products akin to placebo drugs – and nicotine is no placebo.”

    Well if this is the case and the tobacco company used their intensely influential power to open a loophole in the system…. Then shouldn’t e-cig companies take advantage of this loop hole and introduce their new product, which may very well be significantly safer than traditional cigarettes, to this pre-existing regulatory position?

    Now if this is achieved, ipso-facto, wouldn’t this in turn be the ultimate revenge against the profoundly evil tobacco companies?

  62. daedalus2u says:

    jeffhyat, you are simply lying. Diet Pepsi is not addictive in the sense that nicotine is. To state that it is is simply a lie, a “pants on fire” lie.

    Addiction has a definition. Nicotine meets that definition, so does alcohol., so does morphine. Food does not.

    Maybe you need to delude yourself that a nicotine addiction is no different than the desire to drink Diet Pepsi. Maybe that delusion helps you to mitigate the harm of being addicted to nicotine. My experience has always been that public policy should always be driven by reality, not by delusions.

    I don’t dispute that there are some people who like to smoke. There are a great many people who smoke, who don’t like to smoke but can’t stop because they are addicted. People who started to smoke thinking that they would not become addicted because they listened to the “pants on fire” lies of the tobacco apologists who say that Diet Pepsi is as addictive as nicotine.

  63. jeffhyat says:

    daedalus2u,

    I was not stating that caffeine has the same intensity of addiction as those other items. But to say it is not an addictive substance is more of a lie than anything I said.

    “Caffeine alters mood and behavior, and it can also result in physical dependence, says Roland Griffiths, a professor in the departments of psychiatry and neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. “People are hesitant to think of it as a drug of addiction because it doesn’t have a lot of the health and adverse social consequences associated with our classic drugs of addiction, yet the basic mechanisms by which it hooks people are very much like our classic drugs of addiction,” he says.”

    Source: http://www.usnews.com/health/diet-fitness/articles/2009/06/25/6-signs-of-caffeine-addiction.html

    I was just pointing out the flaw in your argument…

    Which was as you stated “Maybe even more dangerous because addiction is a less obvious danger than is lung cancer….. I consider it unacceptable for addictive substances to be available without restriction.”

    My argument is that if your going after one industry that sells addictive substance why not go at the rest, if your big issue is simply with addiction and not with the “REAL” dangers that are associated with smoking.

    You stated ” My experience has always been that public policy should always be driven by reality, not by delusions”

    I have to agree with you on this one. The delusion that addiction is just as bad as lung cancer should be tossed out and the reality that if the product is in-fact substantially healthier than traditional cigarettes public policy should reflect upon that.

    Think of the thousands of people this product could help. Think of the thousands of people that would be forced back onto to the known killer tobacco if public policy said “oh well it’s addictive so it must be bad, let’s ban it.”

  64. daedalus2u says:

    No jeffhyat, the definition of addiction includes compulsion to use despite ongoing negative consequences. From wikipedia:

    “In medicine, an addiction is a chronic neurobiological disorder that has genetic, psychosocial, and environmental dimensions and is characterized by one of the following: the continued use of a substance despite its detrimental effects, impaired control over the use of a drug (compulsive behavior), and preoccupation with a drug’s use for non-therapeutic purposes (i.e. craving the drug).”
    Yes, the tobacco companies deny that tobacco is addictive. That is a disingenuous legal strategy they adopted to justify continued selling of an addictive product. They know this, everyone knows this.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563585/?tool=pubmed

    If nicotine isn’t addictive, then why don’t smokers just stop? Why are there no smoking products that do not contain psychoactive substances? Smoking for “flavor” has no appeal, unless one of the “flavors” is nicotine. Nicotine isn’t a flavoring agent. Nicotine does not activate “taste buds”, it activates nicotine receptors which have nothing to do with taste.

    I am not minimizing or dismissing the dangers of lung cancer from smoking. You certainly are minimizing and dismissing the dangers of nicotine addiction. I have no objection to e-cigarettes being sold after they have gone through the appropriate screening as drug delivery devices, and if appropriate taxes are paid on the nicotine. E-cigarettes probably are safer than smoked tobacco in as far as lung damage is concerned (but that is not clear, the carbon monoxide in smoke may have some protective properties). But their degree of safety needs to be tested. Why are you against testing to see how safe these e-cigarettes really are?

  65. jeffhyat says:

    daedalus2u,

    I never said I was against testing the safety of the product. This is something I am all for. In-fact in my replies I even posted links to studies already performed testing the toxicology of both e-liquid and the aerosol vapor. Both studies show in factual matters the product is substantially safer than traditional cigarettes.

    I am all for even larger and more vigorous studies. I believe the e-liquid manufacturing process should be under ongoing evaluations that lab test each individual batch of liquid created.

    Here’s the liquid study:
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

    Here’s the aerosol study:
    http://www.njoythefreedom.com/contactcommerce/images/press_releases/Response%20to%20the%20FDA%20Summary.pdf

    Secondly you stated:
    ‘If nicotine isn’t addictive, then why don’t smokers just stop?”

    I never once stated nicotine isn’t addictive. However, if in a world where inhaling tobacco smoke wasn’t so detrimental to your health and didn’t in-fact kill you…. Would being addicted to nicotine be such a concern as smoking currently is? Probably not. Because it’s not the nicotine that is killing these people it is the smoke.

    In-fact, The majority of all the e cig companies include warning labels which clearly indicate that nicotine is an addictive substance.

    You stated:
    “Why are there no smoking products that do not contain psychoactive substances? Smoking for “flavor” has no appeal, unless one of the “flavors” is nicotine.”

    This is simply not true. I know of many people personally that smoke Shisha out of hookah’s that do not contain any nicotine. It is typically an herbal blend and they are smoking for the flavor and the act itself.

    I actually feel that smoking is the appeal. The very act of blowing out smoke is typically what intrigues people to try the product to begin with. Native Americans would even smoke blends of different herbs:
    Kinnick Kinnick leaves
    Yerba Santa
    Red willow bark
    Bear berry
    Yucca root
    Osha root
    Mullein
    Sage
    Tea Leaves

    Many of these were smoked not for their psycho-active properties but for their flavor.
    There are also e-cigarettes which do not contain nicotine but instead have flavored vapor. These would be their “no nicotine” cartridges. This would be comparable to a non-alcoholic beer per-se.

    I think we both agree on further testing and study should be performed. However we should not overlook the promising preliminary results which I have included in my links and that many independent manufacturers have taken regarding their products.

  66. jeffhyat says:

    I also want to be clear on something that seems to be a common misconception on this board.

    The tobacco companies and E-cig companies are two separate bodies. They are in-fact competitors in the same market. There is no tobacco company in existence which is marketing or even the unseen shadow behind the electronic cigarette.

  67. windriven says:

    @jeffyhat

    Sorry Bud, I choked on:

    “I know of many people personally that smoke Shisha out of hookah’s that do not contain any nicotine. It is typically an herbal blend and they are smoking for the flavor and the act itself.”

    You know darned well that daedalus2u was not talking about the flavor of smoking dried banana leaves or anything other than tobacco. E-cigs apparently have little flavor at all (other than your general toxic waste dump sort of tang) so they are artificially flavor enhanced. If you want the flavor of chocolate, buy a Snickers bar and buy one for the kid next door too.

    I smoked for a lot of years (and gave it up 20 years ago). I didn’t smoke for the ‘flavor.’ The flavor in and of itself ain’t all that and a bag of chips. I smoked for the same reason that you smoke: for the nicotine kick.

    Daedalus2u convinced me of two things, one intentionally, one probably not. He convinced me to tax the crap out of e-cigs, just like cigarettes. I’ll be meeting with a friend of mine in the state senate next week to discuss that very thing.

    The second is that I now believe that e-cigs should be freely available (presuming the taxation part) with the proviso that the penalty for selling the stuff to anyone under age be just short of drawing and quartering.

    So light up (power up?) Jeff! Maybe we can build light rail between Seattle and Olympia with the proceeds.

  68. windriven says:

    @jeffhyat

    I sincerely beg your pardon: it was not my intention to mangle your name in the above post.

  69. jeffhyat says:

    The purpose of taxing cigarettes is to curb usage and decrease the dangerous risk of using the product.

    If e-cigarettes do not cause this same danger, than taxing them in this same category would not only be a ridiculous notion but it would also defeat the ORIGINAL intent of reducing the dangerous risk of using tobacco.

    But hey… The political system we live in now is so fraudulent and monetarily driven that even the notion of gaining loss tax revenue by taxing e-cigarettes would probably get these politicians jumping for joy.

    But that’s beside the point.

    The real point is you messed up spelling my name. ;)

  70. windriven says:

    @jeffhyat

    “The purpose of taxing cigarettes is to curb usage and decrease the dangerous risk of using the product.”

    More often than not the real purpose of taxing anything is to raise funds for governments at every level. There are taxes on gasoline, real estate, screws at Home Depot, alcoholic beverages, gasoline, and flushing one’s toilet (the sewer bond in my community costs a whopping $95 a month!)

    But the underlying point here is that e-cigs can’t have it both ways. They are a drug and delivery system. You can shout about it, stamp your feet, whatever. In a “non-fraudulent” system e-cigs would be treated no differently than any other inhaler and FDA would need to give it their okey-dokey.

    But they aren’t treated equally because, at least for now, those companies have argued successfully that they are covered under the same exemption that Big Smoke paid handsomely for and now smugly enjoys. That, my friend, was the e-cig companies’ choice. Having chosen that set of rules, how is it not fraudulent if they don’t play by ALL of them?

  71. Leadfoot says:

    Wow. Lot of conflicting views here, but I’m seeing a lot of propaganda and hot air with some well-researched answers as well.

    I smoke every day and enjoy the shear pleasure of it. Only top shelf special order for me. I certainly make no apologies for being a smoker. I’m also in a lot better physical shape than most non-smokers, I’ll run rings around them happily just to rub it in, but if you ask any smoker what they would rather have, a cancer causing smoke or a less expensive non cancer causing smoke that they can enjoy anywhere without the risk of dying from it or causing harm to anyone else, it’s pretty obvious what their choice would be.

    These e cigs are the biggest thing since sliced bread. Smokers around the world are determined to get their hands on them (legal or not) and fight for them if necessary. There is a force driving them and it’s got some governments running scared. Can you imagine the tax revenue lost for governments (and tobacco companies) if everyone around the world gave up tobacco smoking tomorrow? That’s a lot of hospitals.

    Like it or not these are the future for all smokers that choose it, some minority groups are just trying to delay the inevitable. You can call me an addict if you like, all the anti-smoking bigots seem to enjoy it or try to influence by calling us addicts with the whole “I’m better than you thing” but that arguments never held any ground with me or any other smoker I know because everyone has their vices whether they admit to it or not, coffee included. I’d rather be a smoker than a busy bodied, self-righteous hypocrite Nazi any day of the week.

    Did you know the term “passive smoking” was created by the Nazi’s in WWII? 100% true, it’s a fact. Hitler was a non-drinker and non-smoker who as we all know forced his opinions onto others and killed people in the process not unlike what some governments and anti-smoking groups are trying to do now by depriving smokers of a far better alternative or to give it up altogether using whatever method the smoker see’s fit.

    All the REAL evidence so far (not the hot air) has been produced in the defence of e cigs and it’s compelling to say the least (when looked at objectively) you could even say it’s not even in dispute. Some organisations will have you believe otherwise, which is exactly what they want. No evidence from the offence side other than slander. E cigs were actually promoted on the TV show “The Doctors” and originally trialed by a real doctor with real patients. The UK has embraced e cigs, so has Europe, New Zealand too. Some hotels and airliners are promoting their vape friendly atmospheres. In 5 years time you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who use to smoke, not using one of these. Nicotine delivery? Gimme a break. Maybe some will use it for that to help them give up but most will use them to continue their enjoyment and pleasure for smoking without having to potentially die for it. They come with no nicotine cartridges too.

    There is an army of people around the world who believe so strongly in these that to try and take them away would be like trying to take the beer out of a pub, someone’s gonna get hurt and it won’t be the beer drinkers. My advice to anyone that disagrees with it? Get educated about it like the rest of us, and take whatever the governments or anti-smoking groups have to say with a grain of salt, they’ve got a vested interest in keeping the tobacco industry alive and well.

    Just to clarify, NO they do not smell, NO they do not taste bad, in fact come in almost whatever flavour or strength your heart desires (very tasty) no bad breath either, and NO they do NOT have any impact, health or otherwise on anyone or anything other than some people’s psychological hatred toward anything that even resembles a cigarette. It emits nothing more than water vapour (like steam out of a kettle) The old age philosophy of “Give Up or Die” no longer applies. It is also called vaping NOT smoking.

    Whoever said they look, how you say “dorkorama” (haven’t heard that since the 80′s) there are many vaper’s that would disagree with you there. They look cool as, sorry.

  72. Leadfoot says:

    By the way what I said about the beer drinkers and someone getting hurt was a figure of speech, please don’t take it out of context, was simply trying to make a point that there is alot of unhappy people that feel their right to vape is exactly that. Like anything new it takes time and a lot of patience for the general public and organisations alike to accept it as being a “normal” activity, if there is such a thing. It can only be a good thing for both smokers and non-smokers.

  73. KauaiFinn says:

    MANY thanks to all those who have spoken out in defense of e-cigs!!

    As a chronic smoker for over 20 years: e-cigs have quite possibly saved my lungs. I have been “vaping” for 2+ yrs now, and….
    Asthma attacks: GONE.
    Chronic bronchitis: GONE.
    No more weazing, no more coughing, chest pains, etc. (and the 2 conditions above) for 2+ years now!

    It is very well known what the long-term effects of tobacco cigarettes are, and yet they remain legal (as i, personally, feel they should be). Thus, it stands to reason that if the medical community is earnestly concerned for our wellbeing: tobacco cigarettes should have been taken off the market years ago. Heck, they may as well take all alcohol, aspirin, cleaning products, etc. off the shelves too. Perhaps we aught to place ourselves in plastic bubbles from the day we are born so that no harm can be done to our selves or others.

    If the government should illegalize e-cigs here in the USA, i would go straight back to smoking tobacco. That is simply how it is because I enjoy smoking, and e-cigs provide me the safest possible way to continue to do so.

    It should also be noted that *reputable* e-cig vendors do NOT advertise or make claims of e-cigs as a smoking cessation device. They are merely an ALTERNATIVE to smoking tobacco –and a very good one in my opinion.

    Someone posted that the vapor of e-cigs smell *worse* than cigarettes(?!!?) I cannot imagine that this posters comment was anything but a flat out lie. I’ve “vaped” in the close company of all sorts of people & public places & have not had a single occassion in which i’ve offended anyone or even been suspected of “smoking.”

    Long live e-cigs!!
    If they should find any harm in them, let them correct it & continue developing this alternative to smoking!

    Aloha

  74. daedalus2u says:

    Taxes on cigarettes are not there to discourage smoking, they are there to raise revenues. They are trying to maximize the product of (tax per smoker) times (number of smokers).

    To maintain the numbers of smokers, new smokers need to be recruited from children as older smokers die. The need to get more people addicted to nicotine is what the nicotine addiction industry (which e-cigarettes are definitely a part of) needs for sustainability.

    In people not addicted to nicotine, cost and ease of access are gigantic factors in taking enough to get addicted. Once someone is addicted, the price they are willing to pay goes up dramatically.

    The major harm of e-cigarettes is that they deliver a drug, nicotine, which is addictive. If that harm of e-cigarettes could be fixed, then I don’t think there would be any objection to them. There also would be no market for them either.

    They really should be classified as a medical device, a device to deliver the drug nicotine. Nicotine should be regulated along with heroin and crack-cocaine as the extremely addictive drug that it is. Sales should be highly regulated and limited to only those already addicted. The only reason tobacco and nicotine is not regulated the way that other drugs are regulated is because of money and the politicians that money can buy. Sustainability in the nicotine addiction industry requires that non-addicted individuals become addicted to maintain the number addicted as old addicts die off. Sustainability requires that non-addicted individuals be allowed to buy and use nicotine products, and that they be duped into doing so.

    E-cigarettes may be effective harm reduction for an already addicted individual compared to smoking. They are not any type of harm reduction for non-addicted individuals. The illusion that e-cigarettes are “harmless” may reduce the narcissistic injury of addicted individuals, who can imagine they are doing something “harmless” compared to smoking. E-cigarettes are not “harmless” compared to not smoking.

    I don’t think that reducing the narcissistic injury of nicotine addicted individuals is worth the harm of having more people addicted to nicotine. Of course the nicotine addicted individuals who have their narcissistic injury reduced will disagree, and those who profit off the addiction to nicotine will capitalize on that because they need more nicotine addicted individuals to sustain their profits.

  75. Leadfoot says:

    daedalus2u
    They really should be classified as a medical device, a device to deliver the drug nicotine. Nicotine should be regulated along with heroin and crack-cocaine as the extremely addictive drug that it is. Sales should be highly regulated and limited to only those already addicted.

    Leadfoot
    Seriously dude what have you been smoking. You are trying to place nicotine in the same category as crack or heroin, unbelievable. Stop trying to make out that everyone that smokes is some poor induvidual that can’t give it up. I smoke because I want to not because I’m a heroin addict and my choice to smoke should not mean a death sentence or should ever be implied as anything other than my own personal choice. Stop with the “holier than thou” approach, it doesn’t work. If doing something you enjoy makes you an addict then everyone’s guilty.

  76. Leadfoot says:

    Here’s an idea
    Why don’t we start making scooners drug delivery devices. We can put label’s on them saying “beer kills brain cells” and tell people they can only get it from a GP with a prescription. I’m as against crack and heroin as anyone else but trying to put nicotine in the same category is a ridiculous notion. It’s comments like that which keep these breakthrough technology’s that should be readily available at every corner store from day one, wrapped up in political red tape for years on end while people that could have had thier life saved end up dying, it’s tragic. The fact is e cigs should never have had the controversy surrounding them at all. They are a safe alternative to smoking plain and simple. Every supermarket world wide should stock them.

  77. KauaiFinn says:

    Leadfoot: Well said! ;-)

    Happily Vaping in Hawaii,
    ~ Kauaifinn

  78. tmac57 says:

    I feel like I just endured the world’s longest commercial for e-Cigarettes.

  79. Vocalek says:

    Excuse me? I thought someone said this was a science blog. So let’s see some facts and figures. Those of you who said that e-cigarettes are being marketed to children, can you give me a break-down of the age brackets of consumers? How many are under the age of 18? Age 18-30, 30-50, over 50?

    Also, can you provide me with a break-down of how many years consumers smoked real tobacco cigarettes?

    Can you tell me what percentage of e-cigarette consumers never used nicotine before trying an e-cigarette? How many of those have “graduated” to smoke real cigarettes? What percentage were former smokers who decided to come back to nicotine via the e-cigarette?

    Coming from the opposite end, can you provide me with a break down of how many years consumers smoked tobacco cigarettes before trying an e-cigarette? What percentage of consumers who use e-cigarettes on a regular basis use them as a complete replacement for smoking tobacco cigarettes, what percentage use them as a partial replacement for smoking, and what percentage use both products?

    What percentage of e-cigarette consumers have tried nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, and prescription inhalers in previous attempts to quit smoking?

    What percentage of e-cigarette consumers are reporting improvements in their health? What percentage feel their health is the same, and what percentage feel thier health has worsened.?

    How many cases of serious adverse events have been reported as a result of using e-cigarettes?

    Finally, I have seen several links to toxicological studies that indicate that some brands of e-cigarettes contain minute traces of carcinogens from tobacco in the liquid form, but that no carcinogens are found in the vaporized form. At least one lab tested for exhaled carbon monoxide with human subjects and found none. These tests also indicate that the nicotine is 99% absorbed by the users.

    Where are the links to the studies that prove the exhaled vapor contains harmful substances in quantities that violate the EPA or OSHA standards for clean indoor air quality?

    By the way, data has been gathered that answers most of the demographic questions posed above. This white paper discusses how the data was gathered, the statistical methods applied, and the results. http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

    In July 2009, the U.S. FDA asked the public to report e-cigarette adverse events using the MedWatch systm. As of January 30, 2010, either no cases have been reported, or the FDA is keeping these reports a secret for some reason.

  80. H says:

    Firstly, the idea that e-cigs can be taxed out of existence, if at all, by current law is a non-starter. Regular smoking tobacco is taxed by the pack (or by the cigarette) and by the weight of tobacco. If it were taxed by the milligrams of nicotine, ultra lights would be much cheaper. New taxes would have to be established, and until the market for them grows, it’s not worth the effort.

  81. Riv says:

    Well here I thought I’d found a refuge of intellectuals to discuss the merits or potential dangers of the e-cig and what do I see? The same old “but what about the children” argument that all ignorant people use to sway public opinion. What a shame.

  82. Leadfoot says:

    Vocalek
    Coming from the opposite end, can you provide me with a break down of how many years consumers smoked tobacco cigarettes before trying an e-cigarette? What percentage of consumers who use e-cigarettes on a regular basis use them as a complete replacement for smoking tobacco cigarettes, what percentage use them as a partial replacement for smoking, and what percentage use both products?

    I can understand your comment here, truly, but since this a new product and governments around the world are bucking the system to save thier own revenues, no study’s can really be done. It’s estimated more than 300,000 people (and growing) are using these, many in some countries are taking matters into thier own hands by getting hold of them illegally since they feel they shouldn’t be denied access to them in the first place and making them illegal is a bit of a joke anyway.

    What I can tell you is that amung the smoking community the response to these (unlike the useless patches and gum 95% failure rate) has been staggering, I haven’t heard of a failure story yet with e cigs, except when they ran out of nicotine cartridges, then they went back to tobacco cigarettes temporarily. From a smokers perspective I suppose it comes down to that the only thing that can replace a cigarette is a cigarette. So long as it looks, tastes and gives the same satisfaction as the original, smokers are happy to trade the bad one for the good one.

  83. Kristinnm says:

    Interesting arguments. I especially like the “save the children” one.

    Facts:

    1. In nearly 5 years on the world market, there have been no reports of illness or injury due to electronic cigarettes.

    2. Ecig users have by and large reported improved health and breathing after switching to ecigs from tobacco smoking.

    3. In a survey of 718 ecig users, 84.68% were over the age of 25 and 56.82% were over the age of 35. Consumers of these devices are NOT children nor even college age kids.

    4. At least three studies (including one by the FDA) on the vapor have been done and show that the liquid does not contain the most harmful toxins of tobacco smoke – tar, ammonia, arsenic, etc – and contains such a low level of carginogens (or nitrosamines), they are at the same levels as FDA nicotine gum or patches.

    5. Fruit and other non-tobacco flavored liquids are also enjoyed by the ADULTS who use the ecig and are largely attributed with the user continuing to use the ecig instead of going back to tobacco. Nearly 46% of ecig users polled (who are largely over the age of 35, mind you, not children) use a non-tobacco or non-menthol flavor. They also report that the flavored liquids made the taste of tobacco smoke repulsive to them, which makes it unlikely that they’ll want to switch back to tobacco or that the non-existant, non-previous-smoker ecig users would enjoy the rank taste of tobacco smoke after only ever using candy or fruit-flavored vapor.

    6. In a survey of 1,479 ecig users, 82.01% report that they stopped using tobacco cigarettes in favor of the ecig, substantially reducing their exposure to toxic smoke.

    7. If ecigs are classified as a tobacco alternative instead of a drug delivery device, they will automatically be illegal to sell to minors in every state in the U.S., so no fear of selling to minors – not that they show any sign of wanting them. As someone said, they look geeky. What kid wants to look geeky? My 16 and 19 year old sons think it’s great that I made the switch, but they wouldn’t touch one with a 10-foot pole. (They don’t smoke, either.)

    8. In a survey of 344 ecig users, only .087% reported that they were non-smokers before using ecigs. This strongly indicates that SMOKERS are the consumers for this device and it is NOT attracting new consumers to be addicts, only converting the highest risk group.

    9. Nicotine is a low health risk addiction without the toxins in the smoke. What is wrong with an addiction if it’s not hurting anyone else and has a small (if any) impact on the health of the actual user?

    10. If you ban ecigs, make them too expensive or dilute them to be as effective as FDA-approved NRTs (which have a 7% success rate after 12 months. Chantix has a 44% while being used, but it drops to less than 11% after treatment is ended) people will not simply quit nicotine. They will return to smoking tobacco.

    So, what is worse? Letting the real consumers of this device (grown adult smokers) reduce the risks of their addiction to nicotine by allowing them to obtain it from a reasonably safer alternative to tobacco or forcing them to go back to smoking.

    Just as a side note to the “save the children” advocates: Kids will always start smoking. Even with flavored tobacco, the largest selling flavor was always menthol for kids, so flavor bans were pointless. If they are going to smoke anyway, wouldn’t it make more sense for there to be a safer alternative available for them? And even if it is, do you really think they would use it? By virtue of it being less dangerous for them, doesn’t that usually turm a kid off to it in the first place? Chances are a kid will go for a menthol Kool before they go for a peach ecig. Any sane person who was ever a teenager could tell you that.

    The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association has a plethora of info on reduced harm for smokers: http://casaa.org

    Please think logically about this. This device doesn’t appeal and never will appeal to kids and other non-smokers, unless tobacco cigarettes were banned. And we all know this won’t happen.

    So, the only people directly affected by this product will by and large be people who were already addicted to nicotine, already smoking and exposing themselves to thousands of dangerous toxins and couldn’t possibly be put in harm’s way by a little nicotine, propylene glycol and food flavoring.

    And think of all the children who will be saved from that exposure when their smoking parents switch to ecigs, too.

    Telling a smoker not to use ecigs, because they may contain “some” toxins; is like telling an obese person – who is trying to eat healthier – to go ahead and eat Ben & Jerry’s, because frozen yogurt still contains “some” fat.

  84. vapegirl says:

    @windriven

    Your name is definitely right on target you big blow hard. LOL!

    As for some of the rest of you that are so quick to condemning a very safe alternative to smoking – three new test are due to be released soon. One from Virginia Tech that will show that electronic cigarettes are in fact 4000 times safer than a cigarette. The test shows that they only found 6 chemicals in the vapor of 2 brands of test e-cigarettes none having any carcinogens. The vapor(not smoke) was found to be 56% to 60% propolyn glycol, the rest was water, nicotine and trace amounts of a flavoring compound used in all kinds of foods and beverages. BTW propolyn glycol has been studied since the 1940′s and has been shown time and time again that it is safe and that is why both the EPA and FDA give it a GRAS rating.

    If you are worried about nicotine, be careful what you eat. It is found in many vegetables and fruits – like potatoes and tomatoes. The amount of nicotine in exhaled electronic cigarette vapor is on par with that that you find in such natural products.

    As for proof that e-cigarettes are good devices to help keep people from smoking harmful regular cigarettes. Two test – again one done by the University of Virginia Tech(which will soon be published in medical journals) did show that all the participants that participated in this test(which had test subjects using patches, gums, inhalers and chantix – alongside electronic cigarettes) that the e-cigarette had a 87% success rate of people to either completely stop smoking regular cigarettes or to cut back substantial during the trial test period(which lasted from Feb to Oct of 2009) and some even stopped the intake of nicotine all together. Other stop smoking methods had 7%, 5%, 2% and 1% stop smoking success.

    This test also concluded that a marked improvement in health across the board for those that did stop smoking regular cigarettes and switching to electronic cigarettes was shown via constant monitoring of test subjects via blood, and urine samples and lung capacity over the period of the test. People who had shown signs of high blood pressure due to the smoking of regular cigarettes showed remarkable decrease in their blood pressures over the period of the test.

    Toxicity levels normally found in a person that smokes regular cigarettes from blood and urine samples dropped off substantially. Some remained due to possible contaminants found in the very air we all breath (auto exhaust to vapors from cooking – general pollutants from various other sources) but overall the toxicity levels dropped from the levels seen in a normal smoker compared to the test subjects that were using the electronic cigarette.

    Hopefully these reports and test results will be published in the coming months to help shed some serious light on this wonderful device that is helping thousands or has helped thousands stop smoking. Which I think all of us can agree on is a very important issue. CDC reports that 400k people each year die because of the effects of smoking regular cigarettes. Think of the number of people whose lives will be prolonged and healthier due to this wonderful device. Also, think of the amount of money that will be saved due to the medical cost of treating people that smoke regular cigarettes – millions of dollars per year.

    As a former smoker myself of over 17 years I can attest to the effectiveness that these devices do work. I have stopped smoking completely(smoked a pack a day). I had my last regular cigarette in July of 2009. I have almost stopped vaping as well. My own health has greatly improved. I no longer have high blood pressure. I now jog 2 miles a day! That was not possible when I smoked at all due to fact that my lungs were full of gunk. My taste and smell have also returned to normal.

    So as I said, do not be so quick to condemn electronic cigarettes…they might very well truly be a miracle device that will help stop millions from smoking harmful, regular cigarettes in the very near future.

    :) You all have a nice day now.

  85. tank says:

    I just want to point out that a solution can be made with no nicotine what so ever to use in the e-cigarette. So in order to help get past the mental addiction and oral fixation involved with quiting smoking E-cigarettes would in fact help greatly. Not to mention that it there is no second hand smoke danger involved. Or smoke at all.

    To make a nicotine free solution just mix any candy flavor you may be partial to with gycerine used for cake icing. That’s it. Not even a hint of nicotine. And it’s no worse for you than that stupid chocolate inhalor thing they just came out with.

    And just for the record, It does not smell worse than normal cigarettes. It smells no worse than someone sucking on a peppermint.

    And i rather look dorky with my dorky fake cigarette than look dorky with my lung cancer FiFi.

  86. tank says:

    Oh yeah, and I was carded where I bought mine, and I’m 30 years old. Not one time have i heard or seen it marketed to children. And the man who owns the store I bought it from smoked 5 packs a day of regular cigarettes before he came across e-cigarettes. He has since switched over completely to the e-cigarette and his store smells better, his hair and fingers are no longer yellow and his voice doesn’t sound like he’s spent his whole day swollowing sand. So before you waste your time on your soap box shouting about how this new thing MAY be bad for you, how about you try to see it from the point of view of someone who has been addicted to cigarettes for most of their life.

Comments are closed.