Smokeless cigarettes in need of more tests

[mpetva]

Nashuatelegraph.com: Smokeless cigarettes 
in need of more tests

Partial Quote:

The e-cigarette industry’s effort to block FDA intervention suggests it has something to hide, even if that’s not the case. If the products really are a safe alternative to cigarettes, the industry should welcome the FDA’s interest.

[Arkayne]

I didn't read the article, but I think anyone with half a brain would want to keep the FDA (or ANY gov. agency) out of it's business. I don't think the industry has anything to hide, especially since what the industry offers is more a method than a product. Since vaping is so closely associated to smoking and there's no "vaping" lobby to speak of, it could easily be crushed by some bad knee-jerk decisions from some congressmen who can't wait to loudly strike a blow to save their constituents from a perceived threat that can't defend itself.
Personally, I think it would be a shame for any gov. investigation into the fledgling vaping community since it is clearly less of a threat than the tobacco industry. It will happen though...just as soon as it becomes popular enough to get someone some publicity. They can't stop us from making our own and flying the flag though. I've told every smoker I know, and I'll never smoke again.

[M4jin]

i havent seen anyone mentioning or referencing eclipse cigs in anything ive ever read on the subject

[Angela]

Actually, if you read the article, it's not too bad at all.... it most definitely isn't in the 'BAN THEM!' league.... in fact, it specifically states that banning them would be overkill

Yes, they've got quite a bit of mis-information in there (including the assuption that it's the FDA who will carry out the full testing of these products), but the overall tone is pretty middle of the road and the message is more or less what is stated on here every day: "There ought to be more testing done to confirm once and for all what effects e-cigs have" then they can either be sold as is to adults, or, if not 100%, then sold with a warning notice on them and let people decide for themselves what they want to do.

The mistake they are making is assuming that all the FDA want to do is put guidelines in place and that the e-cig industry is fighting that.... which it is not.

[JohnnyVapor]

In our opinion, its ridiculous for this new industry to expect immunity from any kind of government regulation. While it’s too early to say much about the health benefits or risks of e-cigarettes, the FDA should have the right to test and regulate any product that contains an addictive drug like nicotine. Period.

Emphasis mine. Does the FDA regulate and test potatoes? Tomatoes? Eggplant? How about cauliflower? These products all contain nicotine, yet I can freely go buy them in the store.

I'm not saying that I have a problem with (some) regulation, or that the FDA is a completely evil entity. They're just heavy-handed, and I don't fully trust them to do what's best for the individual versus corporations.

[anim8r]

I've got no problem with the FDA checking out e-cigs. In fact, I not only welcome their involvement, I would encourage it.

However, I do have a problem with discussions and legislature being drafted that bans e-cigs without thoroughly testing these products and providing proof that they are MORE dangerous than regular cigarettes.

If they find any hazards or dangers to our health (and I'm sure there are a few associated with vaping), then simply post those results and let us make up our own minds like we do with tobacco and alcohol use.

[windpath]

I also would like an unbiased opinion from the FDA, I just wonder if we will ever actually get one. Someone was talking about the "antifreeze" ingrediants in e-cigs the other day, and how they have been proven "fatal" to humans, where do people get this crap? Anyway, I sent them to wikipedia to read up on PG and all its wonderful, non-lethal uses. I actually read the whole article myself this time, at the very end I found this:

Possible air germicide

Studies conducted in 1942 by Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson of University of Chicago's Billings Hospital showed vaporized propylene glycol inhalation in laboratory mice may prevent pneumonia, influenza, and other respiratory diseases. Additional studies in monkeys and other animals were undertaken to determine longterm effects, especially the potential for accumulation in the lungs. After a few months of treatment, no ill effects were discovered.[17]

Love it! Forget vaping to quit smoking, use it instead of the H1N1 vaccine

[windpath]

I also wanted to share this one, assumed I could find it here but did a search with no luck...

FDA Smoke Screen on e-Cigarettes, written by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, published in the Washington Times.

-------------- Start Article ---------------
FDA smoke screen on e-cigarettes

Cigarette substitute produces no deadly smoke

At a time when the government is ostensibly trying to cut health costs, why is it trying to ban something that might help people quit smoking tobacco, perhaps the most devastating health problem in the U.S.?



The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a press conference late last month to scare Americans about the so-called "e-cigarette" -- claiming it was loaded with harmful "toxins" and "carcinogens." The agency was implicitly saying: Stay away from these newfangled, untested cigarette substitutes -- better to stick with the real ones, the ones that we are more familiar with, the ones that cause over 450,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
In making its distorted, incomplete and misleading statement, FDA was violating its long-cherished tradition of sticking to sound science as the basis for its policies. And in doing so, it is putting the lives and health of millions of Americans at risk.



The truthful part of the FDA statement was that e-cigarettes have not been through formal efficacy and safety tests at the FDA, and they have only been around a few years. But in the press conference, here is what the FDA did not tell you but should have:



c Traditional cigarettes are lethal not because of the trace level presence of specific "carcinogens" and "toxins," but because by using them, smokers inhale enormous amounts of smoke -- otherwise known as "products of combustion." It is the inhaled smoke that kills in so many ways -- from cancers, cardiovascular and lung disease, and more.



c The cigarette was a relatively obscure product in our society until the invention of a cigarette rolling machine, and sales rose quickly prior to World War I.
Before that, tobacco was used relatively safely -- in chew, pipes, cigars -- because little if any smoke was inhaled. Cigarettes changed all of that.


c The e-cigarette -- a cigarette-mimicking device made up of a battery, an atomizer and a cartridge -- allows smokers to inhale, getting a dose of the nicotine they crave, and then sending steam out the other end (with little or no odor) to mimic the ritual and feel of smoking normal cigarettes.



c The FDA complained that the e-cigarette was a "nicotine-delivery system." Well, it got that much right. But again, it's the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. Yes, nicotine is highly addictive, and it is what keeps the smoker hooked. But getting the nicotine without the smoke is an enormous health advantage for cigarette smokers (the nicotine inserts come in various strengths and the users can adjust them downward as they wish).



c The FDA has approved other nicotine-delivery systems in the form of gums and patches -- and they have been abysmal failures. The smoking cessation rates using these devices is less than 15 percent after one year, condemning millions of addicted smokers to a lingering death. We desperately need other alternatives. But the FDA has now joined a long list of so-called public-health organizations -- including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Lung Association -- whose collective motto seems to be "quit or die." Not only do they reject e-cigarettes, but they also condemn other smokeless products like snus, which have a mere fraction of the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes.



c More than 1 million smokers are now using the e-cigarette -- a product that offers some, if not all, of the "social amenities" of the real thing -- holding the cigarette, taking a drag, seeing a plume of "smoke." The FDA, lacking data that e-cigarettes pose a health hazard, was so desperate, it called on consumers to phone in adverse side effects of e-cigarettes so they could begin to build a case against them and proceed with their intended ban. They neglected, however, to request smokers who successfully quit using the e-cigarette to also call in.



Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States today. Any alternative acceptable to addicted smokers should be taken seriously. Instead of condemning the e-cigarette, the FDA should be sponsoring studies to evaluate its safety and efficacy -- leaving it on the market in the interim.



Dr. Elizabeth Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.

[DC2]

Hey Windpath, not trying to be a douchebag, just letting you know that your previous post is for an article that was posted here quite some time ago. In fact, it is one of the all-time favorites!

Also, the anti-bacterial properties of propylene glycol have been discussed here a number of times.

But it never hurts to bring attention to these things again.
New folks most likely haven't seen them.


In other words, keep on keeping on!

[smoobruva]

I like the government telling me what I can and cant do. I dont smoke ......... because it is illegal. I drink tons of alcohol and smoke over 4000 chemicals. I mean the government stands behind and sell them they cant be that bad. Why vape if the FDA doesn't deem them safe? Maybe vaping will be accepted after we become the top manufacturer. Stay obedient!!!