EU EU: “Anti-tobacco campaign heralds new regulations”

[Tom09]

EurActiv EU News, 17 June 2011:

The European Commission is set to widen the scope of cigarette-trading rules to cover potentially harmful electronic cigarettes, flavourings and even marketing strategies, as part of a wider campaign launched yesterday (16 June) to urge Europeans to quit. [...]

... and not only potentionally harmful. EU Health Commissioner John Dalli is actually quoted as “We are revising our tobacco legislation to make sure that we expand their scope – not just to tobacco – because there are other products which are more harmful...”, stated in direct relation to electronic cigarettes.

 

[36tinybells]

Load of crap. Seriously- who vapes and doesn't feel better than when they smoked? Probably that same group can prove that coffee is worse for us than .....

 

[Thulium]

EurActiv EU News, 17 June 2011:

... and not only potentionally harmful. EU Health Commissioner John Dalli is actually quoted as “We are revising our tobacco legislation to make sure that we expand their scope – not just to tobacco – because there are other products which are more harmful...”, stated in direct relation to electronic cigarettes.

Wait. I thought it was the position of Tobacco Control that all forms of tobacco are equally harmful? Does EU Health Commissioner Dalli have evidence that there are products more dangerous than cigarettes that have not been regulated?? If these unregulated products are more dangerous, why have they only offered regulations for cigarettes and left most smokeless alternatives unregulated?

 

[Vap0rJay]

Wait. I thought it was the position of Tobacco Control that all forms of tobacco are equally harmful? Does EU Health Commissioner Dalli have evidence that there are products more dangerous than cigarettes that have not been regulated?? If these unregulated products are more dangerous, why have they only offered regulations for cigarettes and left most smokeless alternatives unregulated?

Furthermore, using that exact logic -- smoker insurance rates should be decressed -- since everything else is more dangerous.

EDIT: So, if I were to sprinkle nicotine over some basil leaves and smoke them... It's not tobacco. It's not electronic. Guess it's not banned or regulated.

 

[Vocalek]

They are looking for success stories from ex-smokers, so I shared mine and invited Commissioner Dali to post links to the research that proves e-cigarette use is more hazardous than smoking. Unstoppable UK - Wall | Facebook

I smoked for 45 years and tried everything, but nothing worked. I had almost given up all hope of ever being able to quit. I have been smoke-free since March 27, 2009 after switching to inhaling vapor from an electronic cigarette. I also learned that there are other smoke-free alternatives that are 99% less hazardous than smoking, such as modern smokeless tobacco products like snus and dissolvable tobacco products. Tobacco Harm Reduction--replacing smoking with a less hazardous source of nicotine--works. It could save millions of lives.

 

[antlion]

I can't believe how stupid they are. Are you kidding me? Please for ^#$^s sake... Do your research on Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin before you say you're looking to 'broaden' your ever so perfect person condescending demeanor bull^#$^" ban on e-cigarettes to vapers because these products are deemed "harmful." in your eyes, great you have eyes and a mouth, do you have a brain? Anti-Tobacco campaigns eh?

 

[rolygate]

This has nothing to do with logic or health, it is all about the pharma money.

Snus is the only proven solution to smoking deaths but because it is a direct threat to pharma income, it is banned in most of the EU. E-cigarettes are not likely to be found as innocuous as Snus (whose users have a proven risk factor virtually identical to a non-smoker), but have far greater potential to reduce sales of NRTs as they are more acceptable to smokers than Snus. For this reason, the strongest possible attack on their use and acceptance will be mounted by pharma in Europe.

You can already see the result in the rhetoric being trotted out by EU friends of pharma. Expect EU directives against e-cigarettes soon.

 

[Thulium]

E-cigarettes are not likely to be found as innocuous as Snus

I think I disagree with this statement, but the risks of smoke-free products are so small in comparison to combustible ones that its not worth arguing. Although e-cigarettes have the "risks" of rechargeable batteries and potentially leaky cartridges, they are not likely to be more dangerous than pharmaceutical NRT products which are certainly no more dangerous than Snus.

The prohibitionist spin doctors have tried to compare the nicotine content in a full cartridge with the nicotine DELIVERED by a single cigarette, but the truth is that 1g of cigarette or snus tobaccos may contain just as much nicotine but each of these products is only used to delivered the DESIRED dose of nicotine. If you're going to compare relative risks, we should examine the exposure to other substance per milligram of delivered nicotine:

To get 1mg of nicotine from a cigarette, you are exposing yourself to all of the hazards and byproducts of burning 1000mg of tobacco. According to some reports, the visible smoke only represents 5-6% of the total volume of smoke constituents--carbon monoxide is invisible, after all.

To get 1mg of nicotine from a snus portion, you are exposing yourself to less than 1000mg of tobacco that is not lit on fire. Although this drastically reduces exposure to TSNAs and eliminates 99% of the harms of tobacco use that are specifically caused by combustion, there are many alkaloids and oral health issues from chronic tobacco use that may present some unknown risks.

To get 1mg of nicotine from an e-cigarette, you are exposing yourself to about 100mg of e-liquid that is not lit on fire. I really don't think the risks of one tenth of a milliliter of propylene glycol and food flavoring would be any more dangerous than a piece of nicotine polacrilex gum, much less a portion of snus. Propylene Glycol is a known germicide and air sanitizer, and considering that at least 99.99% of the volume of e-cig vapor is the air you would inhale normally anyway, it is very likely that the exhaled vapor from an e-cigarette is CLEANER than a normal exhaled breath!

...but considering that NONE of these products has shown a statistically significant increased risk of nearly any disease, it can be difficult to compare relative risks that are virtually nonexistent.

 

[Vocalek]

I'd love to see that facebook page loaded with so many stories from vapers that it makes their heads spin and those who go there looking for advice on how to quit start asking questions.

Unstoppable UK | Facebook

 

[rolygate]

@Thulium
Yes, I agree, but am not concerned about the nicotine content in any way since there are at least two hundred years of data that clearly tell us that consumers are well able to self-regulate their stimulant intake safely even when those stimulants have a powerful pharmacological effect. People do not poison themselves to death with coffee, at least in significant numbers.

It seems to me that the toxicology implications for e-cigarettes will be marginally more serious than those for Snus, due to the range of individual formulations, some of which may not be entirely irreproachable. However, the implications of toxicological variations do not seem of great import - especially compared to smoking, of course.

What is of more concern to me are simple mechanical issues with the lungs. I feel that there is more potential for individual intolerance to various ingredients here, and given that I have some personal experience of this, am unwilling to dismiss it. Statements that "e-cigarettes are entirely harmless" are, I think, less accurate than similar statements made about Snus - for which there are, at least, two and a half decades of research that can be referenced. We only have five years for e-cigarettes and that difference is significant.

In addition, there is also the problem that persons with preexisting lung disease due to smoking will inevitably add to the confusion. At some stage there will be a much wider debate about whether or not those with smoker's lung (emphysema, COPD) can legitimately use e-cigarettes, given that it will take a great deal longer to evaluate the effects, and that subsequent deaths might be attributed to the preexisting disease or e-cigarettes.

It seems that Snus-related deaths are statistically insignificant, despite the large numbers of users in Sweden for 25 years. I do not have the same confidence regarding e-cigarettes, mainly due to some basically simple lung questions. But these comments need to be taken in context: all I am saying is that statements that e-cigarettes are absolutely safe, which is something that it appears can now be said about Snus, may be slightly premature. And in comparison to smoking, it is probably already safe to say there is no risk, in statistical terms.

If 650,000 die each year from smoking in the EU, and if every smoker switched to an e-cigarette and there were then 65 deaths, then the risk is statistically negligible at 0.01% of the previous rate, and at such a small percentage of the total smoking population that it is virtually invisible. But still, probably, higher than would be the case if all smokers switched to Snus (in my opinion).

Anyway, what we do know is that the refusal of the EU to allow and promote Snus use, and their apparent intention to do the same with e-cigarettes, is equivalent to mass murder - and can only be the result of corruption, since no one in their right mind would take those actions. You have to be paid, to ignore death on that scale, to ban the only proven solution, to try to ban the most promising solution ever seen, and to promote pharmaceutical remedies that are proven not to work.

 

[Thulium]

Roly, do you inhale/exhale anything while vaping that you don't inhale/exhale when you have a portion of snus in your mouth or when cooking? Some of the food grade flavorings that are regularly vaporized in much greater quantities during the preparation of food. If you're sensitive to any of these ingredients, you should avoid them and the FDA probably should allow more informative labeling on FDA approved additives. To my knowledge, any "contaminants" found in e-cigs have been traced to the use of non USP grade ingredients--a problem that would not exist if e-cigarettes were regulated based on safety requirements for food or herbal supplements.

As our own Cathy Frey said to the Pierce County Board of Health: "Propylene glycol is used in the asthma inhalers I don't need anymore."

Although you are certainly correct that some people may not be able to use e-cigarettes due to sensitivity to certain ingredients or other preexisting conditions, there is no reason to suspect the possibility of adverse reactions from acute exposure could possibly lead to any increase in death in the long term. You might as well argue that e-cigarettes pose a greater choking hazard--I'm being facetious, but at least choking could actually kill somebody....concert fog machines expose large groups of people to 100-1000x more vapor than produced by an e-cig--I know from experience that sometimes it gives people a headache or even trigger their asthma, but I don't think fog machines are killing anyone, and I really doubt that 5-10W battery powered could be any more dangerous than a 450-1700W fog machine. In all seriousness, the greatest risk posed by e-cigarettes is the possibility of severe vomiting if a relatively large quantity of e-liquid is accidentally swallowed. As long as we practice due diligence in keeping these products away from children, I cannot imagine any way for battery powered fog machines to present any risk of mortality in the short or long term.

In any case,

what we do know is that the refusal of the EU to allow and promote Snus use, and their apparent intention to do the same with e-cigarettes, is equivalent to mass murder - and can only be the result of corruption, since no one in their right mind would take those actions. You have to be paid, to ignore death on that scale, to ban the only proven solution, to try to ban the most promising solution ever seen, and to promote pharmaceutical remedies that are proven not to work.

+1

 

[sqirl1]

oh crap this is not good. you guys in the EU gotta FIGHT as hard as you can! Europe for too long has let these socialist organizations walk all over them! these pharmaceutical companies have gone virtually unopposed for tool ong! the people we're dealing with are monsters who have no soul, no conscience, no regard for human life. Those so-called "suicides" caused by chantix weren't suicides at all, but cold blooded murders at the hands of none other than Pfizer. They're no better than the drug cartels that plague latin america.

 

[rothenbj]

This has been a very interesting discussion on the relative merits of the two products. On one side you have a product that has been demonized for thirty some years by propaganda claiming it's not a safe alternative to smoking and displaying horrible pictures of diseased mouths for all to see. Even among smokers, the vast majority has been convinced smokeless tobacco is far worse than smoking. At least that's the case in the US.

Along comes the E Cig and in short order, the propaganda machine is again trying to use the same techniques to keep the money rolling in. I guess I'll have to admit to being a conspiracy theorist at this point.

The one thing I'm certain of, the two products together are infinitely better as smoking cessation tools than either independently. AND either is much better than the FDA's scientific approach has offered the smoker. I personally couldn't/wouldn't have entirely eliminated smoking with E cigs, perhaps seriously reduced my consumption but something was missing for me. On the other hand and disregarding the mind control from the negative spin on smokeless products, I don't believe it would be easy for most smokers to give up the "act" of smoking by going directly to Swedish snus. The habit is hard to break.

The combination of the two give each smoker the tools to find the path out of the smoking for themselves, so naturally the money factory wants both gone.

 

[Ande]

Anyway, what we do know is that the refusal of the EU to allow and promote Snus use, and their apparent intention to do the same with e-cigarettes, is equivalent to mass murder - and can only be the result of corruption, since no one in their right mind would take those actions. You have to be paid, to ignore death on that scale, to ban the only proven solution, to try to ban the most promising solution ever seen, and to promote pharmaceutical remedies that are proven not to work.

Plus one.

Or perhaps more than one.

The thing about comparing the dangers of snus with the dangers of e-cigs is that it's relatively hard to quantify, let alone compare, numbers which, by all indications now available, are so damn small.

The dangers of snus are probably related to exposure to carcinogens contained in tobacco, but the levels are so low that it seems as near harmless as makes no difference when you see how it affects the population in Sweden.

The dangers of ecigs are probably related to inhaling rather more "impurities" (meaning things other than air) into our lungs. Again, though, early indicators are that the risk is slight.

THe dangers of failing to allow harm reduction alternatives are that people will keep smoking, and millions will die as a result. Apparently, these are the dangers that most governments consider to be negligible.

Best,
Ande

 

[Tom09]

I'd love to see that facebook page loaded with so many stories from vapers that it makes their heads spin and those who go there looking for advice on how to quit start asking questions.

Unstoppable UK | Facebook

I like it that some people this facebook page made clever use of the official campaign logo: