Australians switching to E-cigs despite the Ban

[Petrodus]

THOUSANDS of Australian smokers are switching to potentially dangerous
electronic cigarettes despite a ban on the products...

Article: Click Here

 

[BradSmith]

Wow that might have been the most ignorant article ever. Potentially dangerous vs a known killer? I loved the part about there being NO evidence that it helps people quit. NO evidence how about the thousands of people on this site and others who no longer smoke. Isn't that evidence? Also the nic poisoning was funny as hell. How many years have these been out now and how many people have gotten nic poisoning?

The more articles like this that I read the more convinced I am that they would prefer we die with a cig in our hands.

 

[chrismp]

Pretty much what I would expect from The Age...not a very good paper.

I think it's typical media scare mongering...but one bit did catch my eye "the toxic substance (nicotine) often leaked out of the products, posing a risk to children".

Just wonder how long it'll be until a child dies from nicotine poisoning from nic juice...it'll happen sooner or later and then the media will really go crazy with it. Please be careful with your juice everyone.

I'm guessing this kind of thing will be around for a while...for it to be tested to prove it's safe will take years, even after that it'll probably have a small stigma with the media and general public. I want to stay positive but I see a rocky road ahead for e-cigarettes

 

[Vocalek]

Took some searching of the site to track this down:

Letters to the editor

letters@theage.com.au

Postal: Letters editor - The Age, 655 Collins Street, Docklands VIC 3008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Petrodus]

We are accustomed to seeing negative propaganda about E-cigs and naturally we take offense.

I am not familiar with the Australian "Sunday Age" newspaper's reputation. However, looking at the article with the eyes of a smoker living in Australia...I have a "gut feeling" the reporter may be Pro E-cigs as an alternative to smoking cigarettes.

Jill Stark, Health Reporter: Click Here

Some of my reasoning

The reporter couldn't write a Pro-vaping article opposing the Australian ban on E-cigs. However, the reporter could take the opportunity to report both sides and try to do a balancing act considering the editor (management).

The article has a balance to it. Both sides are mentioned with quotes. I know our side is not glorified, however, our side was represented (kinda-sorta)...and with no slanted sarcasm that we have seen in so many other articles.

The last half of the article starting with the paragraph "Father-of-two…” appears an attempt (in part) to report the other side including helpful information.

She mentioned Elusion sells cartridges with high, medium, low or zero nicotine. Note: not only the company name but what levels of nicotine could be purchased from them...including zero.

All the information in bold print (except the last one) at the bottom of the article is straight forward information and not slanted against E-cigs. In fact appearing more to be an advertisement for E-cigs. The last item in bold print..."Health Risks" (had to be there to satisfy the editor but she did choose to use the word "excessive")

Anyone else think its possible the reporter might be sending signals that E-cigs should be considered as an alternative to smoking cigarettes?

 

[kristin]

Yeah, "NO" evidence certainly isn't accurate. There's plenty of evidence, but most of it isn't in research reports.

Of course, they could be hiding behind the nicotine cessation vs. smoking cessation hypocrisy. There is no real evidence that it helps people quit nicotine, but plenty of varied evidence that it helps people quit using cigarettes. When they say "quit" what do they really mean? Nicotine use.

Wow that might have been the most ignorant article ever. Potentially dangerous vs a known killer? I loved the part about there being NO evidence that it helps people quit. NO evidence how about the thousands of people on this site and others who no longer smoke. Isn't that evidence? Also the nic poisoning was funny as hell. How many years have these been out now and how many people have gotten nic poisoning?

The more articles like this that I read the more convinced I am that they would prefer we die with a cig in our hands.

 

[Traver]

Pertodus, I think you have it right. The two quotes below are the ones that were completely biased and and at least partly false and they were by officials of what appear to be government agencies. I don't know how they were marketed in Australia so I can't say that they weren't marketed as "the ''healthy'' way to kick the habit". It does seem like someone trying to tell both sides of the story.

''I'm concerned they are being marketed online as a healthy alternative to regular cigarettes when there is no evidence to support this claim,'' said AMA president Dr Harry Hemley. ''These products have been banned in Victoria and have not been deemed safe by regulators. As far as I am aware, there are no warning labels to alert consumers to the risks of use.'' Ingestion of excessive nicotine can cause vomiting, breathing difficulties and, in extreme cases, death.


"A spokeswoman for the Therapeutic Goods Administration said e-cigarettes were not a safe alternative to normal cigarettes and were not approved for therapeutic use. ''Except in therapeutic preparations [such as] nicotine replacement therapies, nicotine is a schedule 7 poison because it is harmful to human health. Consumers are warned of their danger to health and encouraged not to purchase these harmful cigarette substitutes,'' she said."

 

[Vocalek]

After reading the response by Petrodus, I softened my letter somewhat, taking pity on the reporter. I removed the word "propaganda."

“Banned e-cigarettes may be a health hazard, but buying them's a wheeze” (December 12) is filled with words like “concerned” and “fear.” The quoted medical authorities are never asked to qualify or quantify their statements. If the products “could pose a serious health risk,” a logical question to ask is “What types of health problems have been reported? How many?” Describing the products as “potentially dangerous” or “harmful cigarette substitutes” with no supporting evidence is egregiously misleading.

E-cigarettes have been in use world-wide for 7 years and are over a million smokers in the United States have switched to them during the past 3 years. Yet not a single serious health problem has been reported anywhere. Shouldn’t the “harm” have become evident by now?

Ironically, several times the medical authorities state “there is no evidence” when speaking of potential benefits of the products. How do they explain the fact that such evidence does exist?

Recently the Italian No Smoking Organization issued a press release, “Electronic cigarettes are safe and can help quitting,” describing Professor Riccardo Polosa's new study on smoking cessation using electronic cigarettes. In the July 20, 2010 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Virginia Commonwealth University published the results of their study comparing smoking to two brands of electronic cigarettes. This research showed that both brands of e-cigarettes “significantly decreased tobacco abstinence symptom ratings,” and “neither of the electronic cigarettes exposed users to measurable levels of nicotine or CO.” In the April 29, 2010 edition of Tobacco Control, University of Auckland researchers reported on a single blind randomized study. A 16 mg electronic cigarette alleviated desire to smoke as well as the Nicorette inhalator, and participants found them more pleasant to use, producing less irritation of mouth and throat, despite the fact that the electronic cigarette raised serum nicotine only half as much as the Nicorette inhalator and only one-tenth as much as a tobacco cigarette. All of these clinical trials point to the ability of electronic cigarettes to be a safer, effective alternative to smoking.

Surveys report that up to 80% of e-cigarette consumers are using them as a complete replacement for all their tobacco smoking and over 90% report their health has improved.


References:
Lega Italiana Anti Fumo Press Release: “Electronic cigarettes are safe and can help quitting.” Newsvine - Electronic Cigarettes: are safe and can help quitting
A.R. Vansickel, et al. “A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic ‘Cigarettes’: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects.” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(8) August 2010. PubMed home
C. Bullen, et al. “Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial.” Tobacco Control. 2010 Apr;19(2):98-103. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (... [Tob Control. 2010] - PubMed result
J. F. Etter. “Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users.” BMC Public Health. 2010; 10: 231. Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users
K. Heavner, et al. “Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: Results of an online survey of e-cigarette users.” Tobacco Harm Reduction Yearbook 2010. Chapter 19. http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf
CASAA survey of 2,217 e-cigarette consumers. https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HrpzL8PN5cP366RWhWvCTjggiZM_2b8yQJHfwE9UXRNhE_3d

 

[Placebo Effect]

Jill Stark's e-mail: jstark@theage.com.au

 

[chrismp]

We are accustomed to seeing negative propaganda about E-cigs and naturally we take offense.

I am not familiar with the Australian "Sunday Age" newspaper's reputation. However, looking at the article with the eyes of a smoker living in Australia...I have a "gut feeling" the reporter may be Pro E-cigs as an alternative to smoking cigarettes.

Jill Stark, Health Reporter: Click Here

Some of my reasoning

The reporter couldn't write a Pro-Vaping article opposing the Australian ban on E-cigs. However, the reporter could take the opportunity to report both sides and try to do a balancing act considering the editor (management).

The article has a balance to it. Both sides are mentioned with quotes. I know our side is not glorified, however, our side was represented (kinda-sorta)...and with no slanted sarcasm that we have seen in so many other articles.

The last half of the article starting with the paragraph "Father-of-two…” appears an attempt (in part) to report the other side including helpful information.

She mentioned Elusion sells cartridges with high, medium, low or zero nicotine. Note: not only the company name but what levels of nicotine could be purchased from them...including zero.

All the information in bold print (except the last one) at the bottom of the article is straight forward information and not slanted against E-cigs. In fact appearing more to be an advertisement for E-cigs. The last item in bold print..."Health Risks" (had to be there to satisfy the editor but she did choose to use the word "excessive")

Anyone else think its possible the reporter might be sending signals that E-cigs should be considered as an alternative to smoking cigarettes?

All good reasoning there mate. I'd tend to agree with you after reading it again...I just skimmed over it at first and really should have read it properly before commenting.

 

[clark8876]

Just to clarify the position of PVs in Australia....

Only the liquids containing nicotine are banned from sale, we are not banned from buying the nic juice, we just can't buy it in Oz because its sale is prohibited. So everyone buys the nic juice offshore. I buy mine from China because it's handy for me and in the same time zone.

Also with juices it is legal to sell, and purchase, juices at 0mg so we have outfits such as juicewhore.com producing high quality Doublers to mix with the imported nic juice.

The sale of the PVs and accessories is also legal (and a few suppliers have setup here) because the PV by itself doesn't contain nicotine....it's all about the nicotine!!!

When you think about it, a PV is simply a battery with a separate electronic part that heats up to a low temperature. It is only when you put the different parts together that it becomes an ecig.

Because I no longer buy "ecig kits", I simply buy spare parts that are readily available for all sorts of uses. For instance I'm simply buying batteries, I think the government will have a problem with banning their sale. Or I'm buying a small electronic components that fit onto batteries...and I don't think they would ban the sale of "small electronic components" either.

I also watch with interest some of your issues with the FDA, I don't believe they can regulate the electronic components, they have just lost that appeal, so they will try to regulate the nicotine as our government has done. I believe it is similar to other implements that are used to burn and ingest 'other vegetable matter'. The implement itself is not illegal, but the product used in them may be.

However, as per our regulations, I think there is something under the FDA regs that allow individuals to buy nicotine for personal use so they will probably try to regulate the sale of nic juice in the States, not its purchase.

Worse case scenario you may end up like us in Oz..........but I can't see China banning the sale of nicotine liquid because that will reach into sales of nic liquid to Big Pharm for their patches and gums etc, so I believe our nic supplies are secure.

"Nil illegitimus carborundum"

 

[PlanetScribbles]

such products have not been tested for safety and could pose a serious health risk.

As opposed to tobacco, which has been tested for safety, and does pose a serious health risk?

 

[Petrodus]

Just to clarify the position of PVs in Australia.... "Nil illegitimus carborundum"

Thanks for the very informative information about the laws in Australia
and comments!

 

[MoonRose]

The warning comes after the federal government last week announced plans to add nicotine replacement therapy to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, slashing the price of patches from $160 a month to $5.

I would say this is the real reason for the article, BP is really starting to feel the loss of profits from their products now.

 

[clark8876]

I would say this is the real reason for the article, BP is really starting to feel the loss of profits from their products now.

Actually MoonRose, this decision will increase their profits!

What it means is that if a doctor prescribes patches for a patient then the patches are subsidised by the government (taxpayer). So BP still gets their $160, but the smoker only has to pay $5 and the remaining $155 is picked up by the rest of us!!

Prior to this decision the smoker had to pay the full $160 to the pharmacy and many were reluctant to do so because they considered the price too high for an ineffective solution.

In the end, the doctors will now start prescribing the patches for all of their smoking patients because the cost to the patient is so low. Which of course, means more sales for Big Pharm and increased profits!!!

Gotta love this!!

 

[rothenbj]

clark8876, It's not only an immediate boom for BP, but a recurring one as it's readily admitted that smoking cessation may take many multiple attempts. I recently read an article where the guy tried quiting 20 times before he was finally successful, going cold turkey no less. I know I probably tried a dozen or so times myself before the PV and Swedish snus.

That $155 could become $1500 real quickly that everyone will pay for and with a 2% success rate after 20 months, a pretty poor investment.

 

[Vocalek]

You would think that by now BP would have figured out how to use a hypallergenic adhesive on the doggone patches. Another problem is that they are very stick-tight if you go swimming or take a shower...but the oil in perspiration slides them right off, leaving behind an angry, itchy red path of irritated skin. You can't stick them back on after that, either.

 

[Petrodus]

leaving behind an angry, itchy red path of irritated skin...

Sounds like a public "Health" concern!
Appears the Patch (tongue in cheek) is "Not Safe" to use.

 

[Vocalek]

According to the 2004 annual report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there were 7,671 "exposures" credited to Tobacco (not broken out by type of product). Of these 9 were considered major. There were zero deaths.

There were fewer (867) cases of poisoning by "Nicotine pharmaceutical" (again, not broken out by product). Of these 3 were considered major and there was one death.

Cases considered Major
Tobacco: 9 / 7671 = 0.117% with zero deaths
Pharma: 3 / 867 = 0.346% with one death

 

[banjo]

All of these recent articles refer to the UC Riverside study for their evidence that eCigs are harmful - and the study is pure crap. I received my Masters from UCR, but - Thank God - not in the sciences.