Vaping isn't as an efficient way to get nicotine as smoking. Particularly with someone new to vaping.
Roly posted this-
...This is because their clinical trials with mini ecigs (and three trials by others such as Vansickel, Eissenberg, Bullen) showed that beginners with minis, using regular e-liquid strengths, had zero or very little nicotine measurable in blood plasma nicotine level tests.
...So there is a very wide range of variation between individuals, and some need far more of [anything] than others. Part of the reason for the success of the electronic cigarette system is the vast range of options available.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...2123-what-will-ecf-look-like.html#post8440301
Just listen to your body and use common sense. Vape until you're no longer craving a cigarette. Just keep in mind vaping is slower acting than cigarettes.
Bumpity. I saw this last week, meant to respond but I got distracted.
Sorry for the "Wall of Text" to follow, but please bear with me because it really was good news.
The Eissenberg study still bugs me a little bit, but since it came to a conclusion most favorable to our cause (that e-cigs "don't work" in delivering nicotine), I'm not interested in challenging the results, even if the methods employed were somewhat flawed. There are a bunch of things to take issue with:
- Smokers used their "own" brand - That means there's no way to control for how the smokers smoked or what brand and strength they used. Were some smoking heavy green menthol 100's? Others smoking ultra light non-menthol kings? There's no data.
- Vapers used brands that experienced vapers know to be somewhat poor in their ability to satisfy those interested in switching. The NJoy NPro and Hydro EC are mass marketed products based on focus group research and designed to have the least objectionable qualities to the largest possible market.
- The nicotine concentration of the e-cigs used in the trial were reported to be 16 mg. That is hardly what we would consider a "high" nicotine content. Liquids with 18 mg are considered "full flavor," and some newer users are using 24 and 36 mg liquids.
- The vapers were given faulty instructions on how to use the product. For the trials, the vapers were instructed to follow the package instructions, which paraphrased, meant that they were to draw on the e-cigs as they would a regular cigarette. We know that using an e-cig like an analog is not going to deliver satisfactory results except in a very small percentage of cases, most of which are likely caused by the placebo effect.
- Vapers know that water vapor is a much less efficient method of delivering nicotine than smoke from combustion. This means that it takes as much as 2-3 times as many puffs/draws/tokes whatever on an e-cig to deliver the same amount of nicotine than will one good drag on an analog. This wasn't addressed by Eissenberg at all.
Another thing to consider is the regulatory environment at the time the study was conducted (early 2010). This was the approximate time period during which FDA endeavored to begin regulating e-cigs as a drug, drug delivery system or combination thereof. Eissenberg knew that environment going in and coming out, and it shows in his own comments:
Consumers have a right to expect that products marketed to deliver a drug will work safely and as promised. Our findings demonstrate that the electronic cigarettes that we tested do not deliver the drug they are supposed to deliver. Its not just that they delivered less nicotine than a cigarette. Rather, they delivered no measurable nicotine at all. In terms of nicotine delivery, these products were as effective as puffing from an unlit cigarette, said principal investigator Thomas Eissenberg, Ph.D., professor in the VCU Department of Psychology.
According to Eissenberg, these findings are important because they demonstrate why regulation of these products is essential for protecting the welfare and rights of consumers. With regulation, consumers can expect that these and similar products will be evaluated objectively and then labeled and packaged in a manner that is consistent with the drug they contain and the effects they produce, he said.
Regulation can protect consumers from unsafe and ineffective products, but these products have somehow avoided regulation thus far. Our results suggest that consumers interested in safe and effective nicotine delivery need to be very wary of unregulated electronic cigarettes, said Eissenberg.
Mash this button.
Note the specific and repeated use of the terms "drug" and "delivery." Eissenberg set out to show that e-cigs were a drug delivery system (or combo), but due to a flawed research method, failed to do so. During peer review, no one identified the flaws and now his study is part of the record. Had Eissenberg been successful, things would be much different now.
The problem with Eissenberg's assumption is that none of the manufacturers were marketing e-cigs as smoking cessation products, which come under the jurisdiction of the US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. That legislation grants FDA authority to regulate substances marketed with a "therapeutic" purpose and includes the patches, nicotine gum and drugs like Chantix.
As we know, a District Court judge in Washington, DC granted an injunction against FDA's move to regulate e-cigs as a drug delivery system in
Soterra, Inc vs US Food & Drug Administration. That injunction was upheld on appeal by the Washington DC Circuit, and FDA chose not to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
So, here we are. The Courts have hog-tied FDA in its attempt to regulate e-cigs under its FDCA authority and the most prominent research to date indicates that even if FDA wanted to regulate e-cigs as a drug delivery system undercuts any basis for arguing that it is a drug.
It gets even better, y'all.
Eissenberg's study also concluded that while e-cigs satisfied the craving symptoms, they also did not deliver measurable amounts of Carbon monoxide, one of the most dangerous substances found in tobacco smoke. That also supports our position that using e-cigs is a measurably safer way to satisfy cravings.
Between Eissenberg and
Soterra, there's not much the federal government can do to stop us from vaping away.
Ironically, the NPro e-cig used in Eissenberg's trials is manufactured by the plaintiff in
Soterra.
