Dear Editor,
This is one of the most poorly written articles on e-cigarettes I have read to date.
How about doing a little research instead of parroting what some uninformed doctor says? How about interviewing some of the thousands of e-cigarette users who have found e-cigarettes to be an effective alternative for smoking? "Official" studies or no, e-cigarettes have been on the market for over 2 years in the U.S. and 6 years on the world market without any reports of illness or injury attributed to e-cigarette use. Who needs studies when thousands of users are reporting successfully switching off traditional cigarettes and improved health? A recent survey of over 2,200 e-cigarette users by CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association) shows over 90% of users either switching completely or dramatically cutting down. Other surveys show similar results. Several tests, including one by the FDA, have shown no toxic levels of any chemicals nor carcinogens in the vapor.
Finally, your reporter stated that "Miller says it's uncertain whether inhalation of ethylene glycol is safe." Well, I'm pretty certain that inhalation of ethylene glycol would be unsafe. However, e-cigarettes are made with PROPYLENE glycol, which is considered safe for human consumption by the FDA and generally regarded as safe for inhalation by the EPA. Propylene glycol is found in numerous foods, such as baby teething medication, toothpaste and imitation vanilla. It is also used for intravenous medications in hospitals. It is used in some antifreeze, but only to make it LESS toxic for small children and animals.
E-cigarettes contain propylene glycol, nicotine and food flavoring - none of which are considered dangerous.
tobacco cigarettes contain 4,000+ toxic chemicals and 50+ carcinogens. Logically, how could e-cigarettes be even remotely as dangerous as the alternative?
E-cigarettes only pose one risk - one to the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies that make ineffective nicotine cessation products and government budgets dependent upon "sin tax" revenues.
If you want to print a really groundbreaking story, break away from the pack and look into the real story about why the FDA and these so-called "public health" groups are knowingly ignoring the facts, valid testing and reports by actual e-cigarette users in order to discourage smokers from this less hazardous alternative. As they say - follow the money. ALL of these groups receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Ask them why they are willing to ban a product that has had NO reports of injury or illness and force e-cigarette users back to a product that is known to kill - traditional cigarettes. What
sense does it make to warn smokers away from a product that MIGHT not be "safe" and have not been shown to be dangerous in any way, when traditional cigarettes are readily available and are definitely NOT safe?
If you want the whole story, please feel free to contact me.