E-cigarette article on ACS web site

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
So far they have not approved the comment I left this morning. I expressed concern about the differing goals of the two sides. I stated that the ACS has made it clear that their goal is to get smokers completely abstinent from nicotine, therefore they would not care about "•Lack of scientific data regarding their ability to deliver enough nicotine to satisfy withdrawal effects" because they didn't want smokers to have enough nicotine to completely satisfy withdrawal effects. I went to to say that not all smokers would ever be able to complete give up nicotine, and the fact that e-cigarettes allow users to control their own nicotine intake was one of the reasons it was proving effective for those who had tried over and over to quit in the past. I pointed out that for some smokers "withdrawal" effects were not temporary, but rather symptomatic of underlying conditions kept in check by their use of nicotine.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
They have published my comment. Actually, I'm surprised by that.

The issues are presented in this article in a very balanced way. However, what concerns me is the difference in goals between those opposed to electronic cigarettes and those in favor. The American Cancer Society has made it plain that they believe the goal of "smoking cessation" should be "nicotine cessation." They believe that complete nicotine abstinence is the most healthy path for all tobacco users. Therefore, they aren't really concerned about "Lack of scientific data regarding their ability to deliver enough nicotine to satisfy withdrawal effects."

One of the reasons why electronic cigarettes are proving acceptable as a smoking replacement product is because the user can control the amount to nicotine to keep symptoms under control permanently. People who are switching from smoking to elecronic cigarettes in droves are older smokers who tried dozens or even scores of time to become abstinent from nicotine. Each time they did so, they became too ill to function. They became confused, forgetful, inattentive, depressed, anxious, and irritable, and many were even plagued by phsyical ailments such as chronic pain and fatigue.

Yes, these are classic "withdrawal" symptoms. But true withdrawal symptoms abate when the drug clears from the body. Symptoms that persist longer than a few weeks are most likely due to underlying conditions such as attention deficit disorder, mild cognitive impairment, or mood impairments. Most interesting is the fact that researchers are studying using nicotine to treat these conditions and others. So the bottom line, which ACS does not appear to be willing to accept, is that complete nicotine abstinence is not possible for all tobacco users, and that for some people it isn't the healthiest path.

I smoked for 45 years and have been smoke-free for over two years. Because I am abstinent from smoke, the wheezing that used to keep me awake at night is gone, as well as the productive morning cough. My blood pressure is lower and my stamina is higher. Because I am not abstinent from nicotine, however, I am able to concentrate, think, reason, remember things, and avoid a state of anhedonia.
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,285
7,707
Green Lane, Pa
I posted the following-

Dr Glynn,

I was very pleased to see a well balanced article on E cigarettes, especially on the ACS website where, previously, the only message was ban E Cigarettes to FDA regulation as a drug and drug device. This would have been a death sentence for one of the highest potential products for a real effect on smoking.

For too long the anti-smoking movement has been headed down a very slippery slope. First to anti-tobacco, then on to anti-nicotine. A prohibitionist attitude toward all forms of tobacco/nicotine has only a negative impact on overall health. An honest review of relative risk of various products would give smokers alternatives to smoking, the use of tobacco that creates 98-99% of the risks of tobacco use.

I was a 43 year, 2-3 pack a day smoker at the end. I never had any health issues with cigarettes until RIP was added to cigarette paper. This was legislated as a requirement without any long term testing for "safety and effectiveness" and in my mind may have serious health effects long term. For me, it may have been a life saver since the coughing and wheezing that developed convinced me to try E Cigarettes. I had tried to quit using all approved medical and herbal methods dozens of times over the years, only returning to cigarettes. I had given up trying to quit at least ten years ago until my girlfriend started talking about trying this new invention. I was dubious, but gave in. I'm now glad I did.

I immediately went from packs a day to about six cigarettes a day. After six months, I was still unable to stop smoking entirely, but was convinced that, after my best quit attempt length ever, I could find a way. I started asking questions and found out about Swedish snus. I was so convinced, by the propaganda, that smokeless tobacco products were WORSE than smoking that my first response was to dismiss the idea. Then I started reading about the product on the internet and reviewing the medical studies available.

I finally decided to give snus a try and ordered my first product. From my first portion, I stopped smoking entirely. I haven't had a puff on a cigarette in over a year and four months and have no desire to do so either. Today I average four portions (4 grams) a day of Swedish snus (about the equivalent amount of tobacco that I smoked in two cigarettes). I also use my E Cigarette on occasion, but more for the taste than any nicotine hit. I have reduced the level of nicotine to zero nicotine.

I don't believe the health industry has really gotten a good grasp on why smoker's smoke and why it is so hard to quit. I now view the issues as a three headed monster. Yes, nicotine has an addictive effect but not nearly as strong as has been sold to the public over the years. For some, it is quite addicting, much like caffeine. Both have similar health risks and both can and do cause people to use too much of the products.

Underestimated in the smoking "addiction" is the habit aspects. I know much of my problem was the habit of hand to mouth motion. Many E Cig users that have successfully quit smoking using E Cigarettes have done so quickly and reduced their nicotine content just as quickly. These people could not have possibly been "addicted" to the nicotine, they were "addicted" to the habit, perhaps the number one reason people smoke.

The third head of the monster is self medicating. I did not understand why I started and couldn't quit until I was well on this journey. I never took a puff until I was 19 and in the process of getting a college education. No peer pressure, just the pressure of college life and the worry of the Viet Nam war that could certainly effect my life when I'd graduate in a couple years. People smoke to self medicate for various health issues, I did it because of a depressive aspect of my physiology. Tobacco has alkaloids other than nicotine. The E Cig helped my hand to mouth habit, but didn't address those missing alkaloids that have an MAOI effect. The Swedish snus gave me the calming effect I needed to put away cigarettes forever.

There are other harm reduction products out there and I can't see any one product being the one fits all solution. Star Scientific has Ariva and Stonewalls smokeless products, a very compressed tobacco tablet some have found helps them keep off cigarettes. Their latest versions with a BDL designation (an acronym for "below detectable levels" of nitrosamines, I believe) have been ruled to not be a tobacco product at all by the FDA. These may be the perfect stop smoking product for some.

If organizations such as the ACS really want to see the smoking population stop, they really need to consider harm reduction as the best possible alternative.

Hope the ACS gets the message.
 

Traver

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Oct 28, 2010
1,822
662
WV
Posted mine. Lets see if they approve it.

While in general this is a good and well balanced article I do have an issue with you statements about the lack of scientific data. I agree that we need more but this article makes it sound as if there is a complete lack of scientific studies and data. This simply isn't true. The main ingredients, Food flavoring, propylene glycol and glycerin have been in use as food additives for many years. They are all approved by the FDA as food additives.
There have also been numerous studies on the use of electronic cigarettes. Both scientific and informal. Too many for me to go over in a short comment. I would also like to point out that the lack of data does not mean there are any negative health consquences. In fact all of the studies so far have implied that electronic cigarettes are an effective and far safer alternative to smoking. Links and a listing of current studies can be found here:
CASAA.org
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
My one big gripe with this piece is this line "They are not likely to be a "magic bullet" any more than other quit smoking tools have been, at least to date. "

I could quote anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but I'd be preaching to the choir here. ;)

Depends on what he means by "magic bullet." If he's trying to say that "e-cigarettes probably will not work for everyone" then he's right. But if he's trying to say that e-cigarettes are probably no more effective than any other tools have been, then he's wrong. Other tools: 2% to 10% sucess rate, maybe as much as 25% if special counselling is provided. E-cigarettes: 31% to 80% success rate. And that isn't even counting those who have been able to reduce the number smoked. Hmmmm.
 

Ande

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 27, 2011
648
407
Korea
And that isn't even counting those who have been able to reduce the number smoked. Hmmmm.

But of course, that doesn't matter. According to the AMA, "Cutting down doesn't reduce your risks." ( http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/433/hl_smoking.pdf )

Nonsense science, of course (last I checked, dosage was an important factor in assessing risk in toxicology and carcinogenesis) but a widely held belief. Even the AMA seems to believe it.

Nicely fueling the "quit or die" push- if you're smoking at all, your risks don't change.

Whatever...

Ande
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
But of course, that doesn't matter. According to the AMA, "Cutting down doesn't reduce your risks." ( http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/433/hl_smoking.pdf )

Nonsense science, of course (last I checked, dosage was an important factor in assessing risk in toxicology and carcinogenesis) but a widely held belief. Even the AMA seems to believe it.

Nicely fueling the "quit or die" push- if you're smoking at all, your risks don't change.

Whatever...

Ande

Several research studies have shown a dose-response relationship between disease states and the number of CPD (cigarettes per day) so the statement in the AMA article is false.

Also research has shown that some smokers find it easier to quit eventually if they reduce the amount they smoke over the course of time. In my husband's case it took several years. Here's one study: Medscape: Medscape Access

Even Johnson & Johnson likes the idea: Cut Down Then Stop
 

Tom09

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 22, 2009
504
125
Germany
This is certainly outstanding:
The only solution to bridging this divide - and ultimately improving public health - is, as we have learned from more than two centuries of public health advances, to put science to work, obtain solid, independent data, and then make decisions and recommendations based on those data. To do otherwise, to develop public health policy on the basis of opinions and anecdotes, will not serve the public well and will, ultimately, undermine both points of view.
As it is coming from the "director of Cancer Science and Trends and director of International Cancer Control for the American Cancer Society", a notable member of a coalition that had been poised to push an outright ban on the base of opinion, only.
(And great posts in the comment section.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread