Harm reduction interview

[TropicalBob]

Makes the points many here would like the public to become aware of:

Electronic Smokers Magazine | Interview with Paul Bergen: Are Electronic Cigarettes Safe? Setting the Record Straight…

[Walrus]

Nice article, but as it appears in Electronic Smokers Magazine, it's kinda preaching to the choir, don't you think?

[yvilla]

Yes.

I was really optimistic and hoping that the Harm Reduction project would eventually take this position, particularly after I saw mention on their site a while back that they were looking into electronic cigarettes.

It does need to get out into more mainstream media however.

[TropicalBob]

True, Walrus, but these are points WE need to make in answering questions during demonstrations or in any public place. Some here are as guilty as the worst seller when they rave on about how wonderful the e-cig is -- to quit cigarettes, with such a safer device, etc. None of that is proven. The points in this interview are the only points any user should ever make, in writing or in person.

Sadly, though, you're right that the public doesn't read Electronic Smokers Magazine, available only online. Talk about publishing in a closet ...

[strayling]

Thanks for posting that, it presented the information in a nicely calm and rational way. I do find myself wondering a little about the Tobacco Harm Reduction Project, because they seem to be almost too keen on e-cigs. I'm inclined to agree with them but I hope they aren't setting themselves up for accusations of bias due to their accepting funds from the US smokeless tobacco industry. I know they say it's "hands off", but since when did that ever convince anyone?

[Walrus]

As a recent convert myself (thanks again, Rita!) I've already got three friends ordering their first e-cigs. I work in a very public position (I'm a DJ at a night club) and I must have explained it over a dozen times this past weekend. One thing that I am very firm on... it is *not* healthy, it's just healthier than the alternative. I am also quite adamant that nicotine liquid is a poison, and point out that pure nicotine is used (or was used, not sure) as a pesticide. I point out that the little 3cc bottles I carry are more than enough to kill.

I had a morbid thought, also. A little 3cc bottle of TW's unflavored 36mg, put into an unsuspecting person's drink, would be quite an assasination tool. Good thing I like most people!

[James]

Hi Walrus - I carried out the original interview with Paul and am currently going through a bunch of material he sent me on nicotine. Although in its pure form it's lethal, according to a number of researchers when taken in an inhaler or similar form it is about as bad as a cup of coffee. (Not everyone agrees with this, though, as there has been some suggestion it could speed up the development of lung cancer!) It also has a number of beneficial properties too, and possibly huge medical potential for a number of diseases.

Of course, it is also very addictive!

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by walrus

i point out that the little 3cc bottles i carry are more than enough to kill.

I had a morbid thought, also. A little 3cc bottle of tw's unflavored 36mg, put into an unsuspecting person's drink, would be quite an assasination tool. Good thing i like most people!

lol!!!!!! :d

[staresm]

Thanks for the link to the article. By taking a bit of a journey from the article, I found and spent a bit of time on this site: tobaccoharmreduction.org/index.htm (sorry, can't put in a complete link yet.) There is tons of information here and a lot of the concerns faced by those who smoke, use smokeless tobacco or ecigarettes are addressed on this site. I do know that the University of Alberta is supposed to have a very good school of public health and a friend of my daughter works there in cancer research. I especially like how they explain the WHO stand on not supporting electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation device. Here's another link to a news story in which Dr. Phillips figured: cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/06/f-rfa-durham.html Either way, it gives us more solid information to pass on to others who might be considering switching to electronic cigs or who challenge our use of them.

Margaret

[pbergen]

Thanks for the good reception on my interview however I would like to respond to a point raised by Strayling regarding our "bias". Though our project did not exist before our funding, our research into this area and support for alternative nicotine products did. If our funding was dropped it would not change our message. But let's imagine that we were just a tool of our funders -if that were the case we would be under serious attack from our funders since our support of e-cigarettes is support of a serious competitor to both smokeless tobacco sales and to cigarettes. (Though our funding was put into place when the company only produced smokeless tobacco, the company has since been bought by a traditional cigarette company). It is perhaps a measure of the hands off funding that 1. we feel free to say and write whatever we want and 2. that nobody from these companies have tried to interfere at all.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that, given the politics in this area, these are the only people who would fund this kind of project. Even more importantly, the research or message should be judged independently of its source.

And, a few of you have mentioned that this is preaching to the choir, publishing in a pro-ecig forum but you do have to start somewhere. What is so great about this is among the few negative news articles is the much more positive coverage of this healthier alternative.