Are ecigs illegal

[thefisherman]

correction:......."their ability," not "they're ability."
One other note: this 'central control' versus 'individual freedom' argument is being played out in a myriad of contexts in our society. However, we, as a society and as a government, settled this argument, at least with respect to fundamental principles, 235 years ago. It's very simple: the individual is sovereign.

 

[I Stelfer I]

In reality we don't know if they are safer. We just know they don't cause the same problems as Analogs. But as far as long term exposure to PG or the effects of the flavoring in our lungs. Yes are safer in the aspect that they cause different things but for all we know they could cause cancer 100 times faster than analogs, just in a different place.

Until a respectable source does extensive health testing and long term testing I'm still going to agree with this guy

 

[5cardstud]

Not only big tabacco companies are losing revenue but also local governments that charge $2.00 and $3.00 a pack taxes on cigarettes. You mess with their money and they don't like that. Better their money than your health thats how they see it.

 

[ChipCurtis]

In reality we don't know if they are safer. We just know they don't cause the same problems as Analogs. But as far as long term exposure to PG or the effects of the flavoring in our lungs. Yes are safer in the aspect that they cause different things but for all we know they could cause cancer 100 times faster than analogs, just in a different place.

Until a respectable source does extensive health testing and long term testing I'm still going to agree with this guy

Stick around this part of the forum and read up on all the legal stuff and medical reviews. You'll see that in reality there's actually nothing to be alarmed about as to what's in an e-cig compared to what's in a tobacco cigarette. Once you get your mind past this fundamental reality, all the other stuff just falls right into place. Who is doing legal battle with whom, it all pretty much adds up.

Many of the vapers here, we have often noted, are well into their 50s and 60s, even 70s, and to say to a person like that, "Hey, you shouldn't try these e-cigs because the 5 chemicals they contain could be more harmful to you than the 4000 chemicals and 60 carcinogens found in an analog cigarette. So, since you only have 20 or so years to live, please continue to smoke your analogs."

Be honest, doesn't that sound insulting to you? If you put yourself in the 60 year old guy's shoes?

 

[Milano]

In reality we don't know if they are safer. We just know they don't cause the same problems as Analogs. But as far as long term exposure to PG or the effects of the flavoring in our lungs. Yes are safer in the aspect that they cause different things but for all we know they could cause cancer 100 times faster than analogs, just in a different place.

Until a respectable source does extensive health testing and long term testing I'm still going to agree with this guy

In reality, you probably haven't done much research. I find it stunning to hear anyone say they "could cause cancer 100x faster than analogs" without any supporting evidence. Please check the Health New Zealand reports, to begin with, amongst other things. That's a very uneducated response and it could be taken as "law" by some people who do not know any better. Please be careful of what you say.

 

[Jimmy_2k9]

I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist so I wont go to deep into what I believe.

I can name a number of reasons off the top of my head though.

1. tobacco companies = multi billion dollar industry's, don't think for a second they don't have pull in most country's. Something that could possibly hurt their industry will have a hard to making a big bang. I believe eventually they'll put some stock into the idea and start making their own products, at that point we shall see them go mainstream.

2. Population control, sounds harsh but in my honest opinion, I believe our government (united states) and many other countries stand behind population control. With todays medicine and health care people live to long. Take China for example, they have laws keeping them from having more than a certain number of children...

3. I think I'll stop here, don't want to rub anyone the wrong way with my conspiracy theories, lol.

 

[fragger56]

@Jimmy
I just had to correct your view on the china child laws.
There are no longer any laws preventing families from having more than one child in mainland china, they just restrict government subsidized services to the families and children.

IE if you have 1 child, you can get free public schooling, if you have a second, you no longer qualify for govt schooling.

This essentially allows well off families which can handle themselves in the cities to have multiple children while restricting the economical burden on the country itself.
Oh and often rural families are huge anyway as they don't care about sending the kids to school, they just want more manpower for the fields.

FYI, I'm a Chinese American, born in Indiana and spent half my life in Hong Kong.

China may seem to have crazy/draconian laws at times but with the general intelligence of the population and the way the population is developing there really isnt any other option. This becomes pretty obvious to anyone who happens to stay in the mainland for any period of time on business.

Not saying I like the Chinese govt, I am living and working in the states for a reason, but its nowhere near as black and white as you think.

 

[I Stelfer I]

In reality, you probably haven't done much research. I find it stunning to hear anyone say they "could cause cancer 100x faster than analogs" without any supporting evidence. Please check the Health New Zealand reports, to begin with, amongst other things. That's a very uneducated response and it could be taken as "law" by some people who do not know any better. Please be careful of what you say.

Though I would agree that some people may take what I said as "oh no it causes cancer that fast? I have to stop!" There really isn't any solid evidence proving or disproving the health hazards of inhaling PG or even flavorings or anti-oxidizers. We know for sure that nicotine causes atherosclerosis which is the hardening of the blood vessels which leads to plaque buildup and nicotine also constricts the blood vessels so those two combined make heart attacks and strokes MUCH more likely in a nicotine user. Source


So that right there is one bad side effect of vaping.

Second, no I can not produce a source for the fact that we don't know if vaping causes cancer 100 times faster because there is no research on it. We don't know.

But everyone who vapes does so at his or her own risk. Vaping does have inherent risks some of which are possibly unknown to us at the present time. So saying vaping is harmless is a complete display of ignorance.

Let us never forget we once though cigarettes were harmless.

 

[I Stelfer I]

Stick around this part of the forum and read up on all the legal stuff and medical reviews. You'll see that in reality there's actually nothing to be alarmed about as to what's in an e-cig compared to what's in a tobacco cigarette. Once you get your mind past this fundamental reality, all the other stuff just falls right into place. Who is doing legal battle with whom, it all pretty much adds up.

Many of the vapers here, we have often noted, are well into their 50s and 60s, even 70s, and to say to a person like that, "Hey, you shouldn't try these e-cigs because the 5 chemicals they contain could be more harmful to you than the 4000 chemicals and 60 carcinogens found in an analog cigarette. So, since you only have 20 or so years to live, please continue to smoke your analogs."

Be honest, doesn't that sound insulting to you? If you put yourself in the 60 year old guy's shoes?

To be honest, I don't recall ever saying that E-cigs are better or worse for you than cigarettes. The only difference between the two is that we know what cigarettes cause. And as far as the 5 chemicals that are in e-juice, in MOST e-liquid out there, there is more like 20 or so chemicals, 90% of which have not been tested for long term effects.

The entire purpose of my post was to present the other side of the argument, which is that we do not know the harmful side effects of vaping and honestly we don't know if they are better for you than analogs. All we can assume is that they do not cause the same things. Past that until there is solid scientific research on the long term effects of vaping it is naive to say theres nothing wrong with vaping.

Btw if you've been smoking for any long period of time and you're looking at the end of your lifespan vaping is going to be just as harmful as smoking because at that point the damage from smoking is done and the problem is going to be caused by the nicotine constricting your vessels and raising your blood pressure (which btw has nothing to do with the smoke itself) That is unless you vape 0mg/mL nicotine juice.

If there is anyone you care about that you know who smokes and is in their 50's and up, there is no safe smoking alternative, they need to quit using nicotine or it will most likely be the cause of their health problems. Nicotine gum, patches, vaping or pills are all going to have the same effect in the end.

 

[justsomeguy]

I find it stunning to hear anyone say they "could cause cancer 100x faster than analogs" without any supporting evidence.

To be fair, he actually said "for all we know they could cause cancer 100x faster than analogs."
HUGE difference in his statement when you include the beginning of the sentence.

Please check the Health New Zealand reports, to begin with, amongst other things.

While that report is interesting, I'm a little troubled with how often it comes up on the board. Personally I'm taking it with the same grain of salt as everything else. As many in this very thread have said, it's always prudent to 'follow the money,' and that New Zealand study was funded by Ruyan. I'm not saying that means the study isn't valid, but it is something to keep in mind.

The National Cancer Institute funds a study that results in what many considered to be unfavorable results and people overwhelmingly seem to cry foul. And honestly there may be good reason to.

Point it, it seems we should be just as skeptical when a study returns favorable results and is funded by the company who held the patent on the e-cig.

I'm not saying we can't trust anything - just saying that I think I might also be siding with the skeptical hippo for a while... on all fronts. That's all.

We've got to take the good with the bad... and need to make sure we're not getting too wrapped up in what we want to believe. But the truth is that until some serious long term studies are done we will never know - we can make educated guesses, sure... but we can't really know.

 

[goodmand]

Well first I would like to say I can breath again. Over two straight weeks not one cigarette. I feel 95% better I have more energy. I don't stink...... they really do stink though. Hopefully we can pull the rugs out from under all those controlling parties. I'm 100% convinced that they don't have my or your best interests in mind. Do you think if they raised the price of heroine that a heroine addict would stop doing it? No... OK thats just one of my point's. The Indians try to sell cigarettes tax free is someone trying to stop them? They are where I live. Finally, someone reinvented the wheel. It's the best thing since the microwave. Do microwaves cause cancer? Hum I don't no. Those Asians had to invent something like this they smoke like chimneys over there and there killing themselves. I have the intention of quitting and I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. peace

 

[ChipCurtis]

The entire purpose of my post was to present the other side of the argument, which is that we do not know the harmful side effects of vaping and honestly we don't know if they are better for you than analogs.

So then, that makes it okay in your view to take the most drastic measures such as "ban them until further studies are done" while tens of thousands of people continue to die from regular cigarettes? Be serious for a moment.

The FDA has been "testing" e-cigs for over a year. They released partial info from their study that only sent out alarmism to the general public (releasing only the info that made e-cigs look bad, hiding the info that proved they are less harmful than real cigs). So this "the FDA wants to help us" angle is not working with me.

To top that off, the FDA okays dozens of quit-smoking products such as Chantix that has been known to lead people to suicide. Just look at the dozens of drugs that are being advertised on TV, the long list of sometimes-DEADLY side effects is longer than the part of the commercial that introduces you to the drug itself. The FDA okays lots of dangerous and deadly drugs every day. The thing that you don't seem to get is that enough e-cig studies have already been done to prove what needs to be proved. At this point in the game, it's all just a game of media showmanship as to who can spin the story their way. No major figures in government or the media are going to be helpful to vapers, it's that simple. Their mind is made up.

Yeah, we "do not know", sheesh. If the FDA gets their way, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW anything that does not suit their financial bottom line. And e-cigs do not suit that Pharmaceuitical-Industry bottom line (who funds the FDA), unlike Chantix, gums, patches and lozenges.

The main problem here is simple: Big Pharma and Big Tobacco did not invent the e-cig. That's the problem in a nutshell. They want it out of the way, or they want to own it. It throws a huge wrench into their plans.

If there is anyone you care about that you know who smokes and is in their 50's and up, there is no safe smoking alternative, they need to quit using nicotine or it will most likely be the cause of their health problems. Nicotine gum, patches, vaping or pills are all going to have the same effect in the end.

This sounds like a statement coming from someone who does not understand nicotine addiction at all. Try to look at it from a smoker's point of view instead of your own self-righteous "I know what's good for you" attitude. If you really cared for those people, you would support their way to find an alternative and less harmful method of getting their nicotine. THE SMOKE IS GOING TO KILL THEM BEFORE THE NICOTINE EVER WILL. What is it you don't understand about that simple scientific fact?? Your attitude towards these people shows no compassion whatsoever. You have a quit or die mentality toward them.

 

[PaulaLynn]

Heres one for ya, There is more tar in a charbroiled hamburger than in a whole pack of cigarettes and they're not taxed to death or outlawed. The government only cares about the taxes not your health as they claim.

Hmmmm Interesting, although I have never heard of anyone inhaling a hamburger .... DIRECTLY INTO THEIR LUNGS (before the smartaleks chime in

 

[goodmand]

You make good points we all know this stuff. I mean how many times can they do the same things over and over with different things and get away with it. Irregardless if it is right ...If it doesn't fit there agenda. Wake up people. I invite you all to watch the "wakeup project" on the Internet. It really matters what we do and who we support. You will benefit from this movie. It will change your life.

 

[goodmand]

Sorry the movie is called "The Arrivals"

 

[donna64]

I personally intend to use the e-cigs to completely quit. I have only just started researching but the concept is awesome. I have smoked for 30 years and desperately want to quit. I have tried and nothing works until now, I believe this will work. I will gradually lower the nicatine and be vaping only vapor before too long and after that I can be done with it.

My point is, there is so much talk about the dangers and risks to my health. This is crazy!!! Maybe I would be a little concerned if I am intending to vape forever, but I am going to use the product to quit.

I don't understand how the government and FDA can actually BAN this product. Why haven't they BANNED cigarettes? They know what they do to us. What about alcohal? We know that drinking is letal, if you drink and drive and it destroys your liver. And what about caffeine? We could list numerous products that we consume daily that is BAD for our health.

I wonder why this product has taken so long to catch on. I think it is about to take off like a rocket.

 

[tpatterson]

As mentioned by many others, it is a matter of money. Tobacco companies are losing serious revenues by the e-cigs. I would be very interested in knowing just how much has been lost in the short time that they have been available here in the US.

 

[Thulium]

To be honest, I don't recall ever saying that E-cigs are better or worse for you than cigarettes. The only difference between the two is that we know what cigarettes cause. And as far as the 5 chemicals that are in e-juice, in MOST e-liquid out there, there is more like 20 or so chemicals, 90% of which have not been tested for long term effects.

Except that there are absolutely NO ingredients in e-liquid that aren't also in tobacco smoke and the vast majority of health problems found with tobacco smoke are specifically known to be caused by ingredients that are not in e-liquid. Therefore, one can state categorically that it is absolutely impossible for e-cigarettes to be worse than cigarettes.

The entire purpose of my post was to present the other side of the argument, which is that we do not know the harmful side effects of vaping and honestly we don't know if they are better for you than analogs. All we can assume is that they do not cause the same things. Past that until there is solid scientific research on the long term effects of vaping it is naive to say theres nothing wrong with vaping.

Just because we don't know for certain that e-cigarettes are safe in absolute terms does not mean we don't know they are absolutely safer than analogs in relative terms.

Nobody said there was "nothing" wrong with vaping, but since every ingredient in e-liquid can be found in tobacco and the known carcinogens have been reduced to barely detectable in the raw liquid and undetectable levels in the vapor, it is impossible for them to not be better for you than analogs.

Really the only "unknown" are the long term effects of the direct inhalation of propylene glycol on the human body. Considering, however, that the research so far has shown positive health effects from the germicidal effect of vaporized PG with only minor side effects like respiratory irritation and potential allergic reactions...no significant adverse effects should be expected.

That doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with vaping. There is nothing on this planet that we understand completely so of course there are risks and it is not unreasonable to ask for more research.

If I weren't already a smoker, I would certainly prefer to wait until the long term effects of vaping were better known before deciding whether or not to start the use of an e-cigarette. But since I do know the long term effects of continued smoking, I'll take my "chances" on the product that has NOT been linked to any significant adverse effects over the one that is widely considered the leading cause of preventable death. ...Nah mean?

 

[Vocalek]

If there is anyone you care about that you know who smokes and is in their 50's and up, there is no safe smoking alternative, they need to quit using nicotine or it will most likely be the cause of their health problems. Nicotine gum, patches, vaping or pills are all going to have the same effect in the end.

I can understand why you believe that nicotine is harmful. There has been a lot of confusion between the effects of smoking and the effects of nicotine. People tend to think the two things are identical. They are not. Here are some good sources of information:

Who to Believe (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

Winston Churchill once observed that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. The idea behind this is that for someone to make up a claim, and for others to repeat it is very easy, while to compile the evidence and careful argument to show it is wrong is very difficult. So, as long as there are people who want to mislead you, there will likely always be more misinformation than honest information.

Nicotine and addiction. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

It is sad and frustrating that some people are so obsessed with ending addiction to nicotine, rather than reducing the heath impact of using nicotine, that they tell all tobacco users that they must quit entirely, and if they do not quit, they might as well smoke and die from it. In addition to insisting that people endure the unpleasantness of quitting, this has terrible health consequences. Since many people who try to quit smoking fail, this attitude dooms millions of people to die unnecessarily from their nicotine habit.

The CASAA web site provides a list of journal articles, complete with short abstracts, on tobacco harm reduction.

CASAA.org

The CASAA Harm Reduction section has footnotes that link to medical journal articles.

Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

The CASAA page on Nicotine Effects also has linked footnotes.

Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

When you say "there is no safe smoking alternative" you are saying "You might as well smoke," which is the title of one of the best articles on the subject.

Phillips, CV, Wang, C & Guenzel B. 2005. You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco. BMC Public Health 5:31.