E-Cigarettes Under Fire--WebMD Article

[CJsKee]

As always Kate is the voice of reason she is so damn good to have around.

Yes...thanks Kate! And I can always count on Yvilla being level headed, cool, calm and collected. You ladies are great! And not the only 2, many great minds on this forum.

Of course, I get a pretty big kick out of some of you other guys, too!!!

[Kate]

I haven't read this whole thread so I'm not sure what issues have come up but this might be appropriate. It's a letter by Tropical Bob presenting a case in favour of vaping (there's a bit about nicotine doses that I don't agree with but the rest seems sound to me) -

To whom it may concern:

When considering the electronic cigarette, please consider these facts:

1. The e-cig, as it's popularly known, was invented in China in 2004 and has been marketed since that time. In the past year, hundreds of thousands of smokers around the world have purchased and used e-cigs, to either quit an addictive cigarette habit or use an e-device in place of cigarettes.

2. Not one headline-making health event has been reported about e-smokers. With all the present users, if e-cigs presented any imminent danger, that danger should have surfaced by now. None has.

3. The device is simple and not prone to dangerous malfunction. It is far safer than even fire-safe cigarettes.

4. The liquid is a mix, often containing nicotine, along with propylene glycol to produce vapor and carry the nicotine content. Propylene glycol was tested more than half-century ago for inhalation by mice, primates and humans. No harmful effects were found in studies. Indeed, propylene glycol was a "germ-killing vapor" that protected those inhaling it from deadly diseases.

5. Nicotine, in the amounts used for e-smoking, has a physiological effect similar to that of consuming a moderate amount of caffeine. It is a stimulant/relaxant. It has both known benefits and hazards. The amount of nicotine consumed while e-smoking is far less than that consumed by smoking a tobacco cigarette, however. E-smoking is thus less unhealthy if direct comparisons are made to cigarettes.

6. The e-cig came to market without regulation on the assumption by manufacturers that it was a safe product not needing regulation. Nothing since 2004 has proven that assumption erroneous. Real-world use of e-cigs, in fact, supports the accuracy of that assumption. These are both safe and effective, as proven by the hundreds of thousands of present users.

Considering these facts and the almost certain fact that e-smoking is safer than tobacco use, the devices and liquids should remain available for those seeking an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, while further study on the need for regulation is undertaken.

Sincerely ....

Now, a form letter won't do much of anything, so anyone desiring to be heard on e-smoking needs to make relevant points in their own letter. No finger-pointing of conspiracy (that FDA Nazi pix will sure win 'em over!!!). Be rational, recognize their right and mission to oversee this country's drug market, and hope the present situation will be allowed as more studies are undertaken.

That's what I'd say.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...tml#post128256


The "... almost certain fact that e-smoking is safer than tobacco use ..." says it all.

[westcoast2]

IMHO e-cig PVs should not be considered alongside smokeless tobacco products. The key difference being the no nic mixes. To have these lumped with and sujected to regulation with tobacco (albeit smokeless) products would benefit tobacco based products to the detriment of non-tobacco/tobacco derived products

Mr Godshall suggested

On a scale of mortality risk from 1 to 100 (on which NRT products are a 1 and cigarettes are a 100), smokeless tobacco products and e-cigarettes are between 1 and 2

Now I am aware you have studied smokeless tobacco extensively, and would suggest you are aware there are differences associated with the oral absorption of tobacco that are not present with the e-cig which has no tobacco. It is tempting to categorize them together because of the lack of smoke, yet this is really not the case.

The association with smokeless tobacco raises difficulties in Europe as Snus is banned in the EU (except Sweden). I am aware the Swedish trade minister is attempting to get the ban lifted, though this itself involves negotiatons about regulation.

[westcoast2]

wrt to the letter, is it possible to say something about the harm/lack of harm to others from vapour? Something is known about fog machines and it effects at least. This being the key issue that resulted in smoking bans.

[Kate]

I wish Bill would tell us how he worked out the 1-2% figure for vaping. It sounds very promising, I just hope it has a realistic basis.

[jerimiah797]

I have a feeling that Bill's 1-100 scale was a combination of a) easy to understand example of harm reduction/risk scale and b) interpolation based on the number 4000 (harmful things) for cigarettes and the number 4 (ingredients, generally) in e-liquid.

I'd be surprised if it was based on anything as remotely concrete as a real, scientifically generated risk formula using actual data about health effects (again, since there aren't any for e-cigs, except anecdotally - as we are all painfully aware).

-Jerimiah

[LiquidVapor]

you know, I really don't care if it is safe or not...it is MY choice to do it..I would only be concerned about the safety of something if it were to hurt someone other than myself...that is the ONLY issue...we are sovereign beings...we should be free to do as we please as long as it does not harm others...most of us choose to drive and guess what?...driving is not only dangerous to ourselves but to others as well...yet we hear no talk of banning driving, now do we?...if we were to stop everything that may harm us we wouldn't be able to leave our homes...oh wait, the allergens in the house may hurt us...uh oh, better kill ourselves as everything pretty much has a risk factor...gee, I was so worried about the safety of my ecig that the stress killed me!..better have studies done and start banning worrying too..lol

[Walrus]

I'd still like one... just one... person who says that kids would get involved with e-cigs to explain how those kids would be able to afford it. We know the real expenses involved. Even the 'up front' expenses are beyond the means of children, including most teenagers.

If parents are giving their children (or even letting them keep) that much money on them, and not monitoring how it's spent, it sounds like a parenting issue to me.

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I'd still like one... just one... person who says that kids would get involved with e-cigs to explain how those kids would be able to afford it. We know the real expenses involved. Even the 'up front' expenses are beyond the means of children, including most teenagers.

If parents are giving their children (or even letting them keep) that much money on them, and not monitoring how it's spent, it sounds like a parenting issue to me.

But, you see, it's not the parents responsibility to raise their children, anymore....we aren't responsible enough to teach our kids right from wrong.......

Sorry, is my sarcasm showing again?

[westcoast2]

Walrus asked

I'd still like one... just one... person who says that kids would get involved with e-cigs to explain how those kids would be able to afford it.

How do children afford, designer trainers, mobile phones, ds and ds games etc?

Of course, for some, parents give them the money or buy them. Some could get the money from doing a part-time job and others from their older brothers/sisters. So if e-cigs became 'the in-thing' then kids would find the cash. e-cigs are about the same price as a DS Game. A DS Game £25, e-cig kit £25? On-going costs even cheaper.

Why would kids get involved? I have no idea, but the UK government has has said it is ok for NRT to be given to children which shows there must be a potential market.