New Indoor Bans - Please Help!

[Vocalek]

Informative post!

Just one correction:



You're confusing diethylene glycol with propylene glycol.

Propylene glycol is the food additive that is the base for most e-cigarette liquid.

Diethylene glycol is a highly toxic chemical and highly unlikely to be found in "many, many foods we eat."

The FDA found "approximately 1%" diethylene glycol in ONE cartridge they tested (but not in the vapor), hence the overblown, hysterical claims of "antifreeze" in e-cigarettes.

Common mistake.

You're point is well-taken, though!

One percent of a mililiter might sound like a lot. We are talking about a highly toxic substance here. But many highly toxic substances are harmless or even helpful in small amounts.

How much is too much?

Assuming the cartridge held an entire ml of liquid, that you would need to take in the contents of 100 cartridges in a single day to accumulate a full ml of DEG. Anybody go through that much liquid in a day?

The Minimal Risk Level (MLR) is 0.8 ml of pure DEG per kilogram of body weight . So you would "only" need 80 ml of liquid per kilogram of body weight to reach the MLR.

Let's use 66 kg as an "average" body weight (feel free to plug in a different number). 80 times 66 = 5,280 cartridges total.

To put this into American measurements, that's 1.39 gallons of e-juice.

Now all of the above calculating assumes that the DEG actually makes it into the vapor. Which doesn't appear to be the case. So to get DEG poisoning, you might have to drink 1.39 gallons of e-juice. Hmmm... sure hope that's zero-nic juice.

 

[WOW]

Why, oh why, does this >> E-Cig Consumer News - Health: The Future Of Smoking
claim 5000(!!!) vs the 4 (food color, food flavor, PG or VG and nic) that are in e-cigs???????

(see "The Doctor's" section)

 

[Vocalek]

Why, oh why, does this >> E-Cig Consumer News - Health: The Future Of Smoking
claim 5000(!!!) vs the 4 (food color, food flavor, PG or VG and nic) that are in e-cigs???????

(see "The Doctor's" section)

1. The article is an "Advertorial" (i.e. advertisement).
2. I did a search for "5000" and only found "The greatest issue with cigarettes is the 500+ other ingredients added, not just the nicotine."

The source of the doctor's confusion might be the fact that the U.S. government has approved a list of about 500 chemicals that tobacco companies are PERMITTED to add. There's a list of them here: The List of Additives in Cigarettes - Additives in Cigarettes

The additives, however, are not the problem.

As previously discussed, the process of combustion creates additional chemicals that are harmful in a number of ways. Those are the 4,000 that we have been talking about. Is the count correct? I have no idea. This is one of those "facts" that gets stated somewhere and turns into "truth" because it is repeated so often.

There is no question that combustion (of any substance that can burn) does create some harmful chemicals. But the number could range anywhere from a few hundred to many thousands.

What we do know is that about 99% of the health hazards are caused by the smoke, because that's where the most toxic and carcinogenic substances are found.


Tobacco does contain some naturally occuring chemicals that can be carcinogenic. A Swedish tobacco company has come up with a means of curing the tobacco that greatly reduces these Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines. That's why Swedish snus users live just as long as everone else. It is conceivable that some day these potential carcinogens could be totally eliminated from tobacco products. FMI see: Smokeless tobacco (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

 

[WOW]

Thanks & thanks for the links (including those you posted yesterday - sorry to not say thanks for sharing your links yesterday....I don't think I've had such a bad day since all the cr** that's in analogs, started getting out of my system in the form of a massive breakout! ) Too bad they don't do studies about that ---- cleared up now, though.

I read the 'free trials' are awful/lock you into a subscription-type deal, whether you like it or not! (http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/65772-do-not-order-free-trials.html)

Thanks again for clarifying that!

1. The article is an "Advertorial" (i.e. advertisement).
2. I did a search for "5000" and only found "The greatest issue with cigarettes is the 500+ other ingredients added, not just the nicotine."

The source of the doctor's confusion might be the fact that the U.S. government has approved a list of about 500 chemicals that tobacco companies are PERMITTED to add. There's a list of them here: The List of Additives in Cigarettes - Additives in Cigarettes

The additives, however, are not the problem.

As previously discussed, the process of combustion creates additional chemicals that are harmful in a number of ways. Those are the 4,000 that we have been talking about. Is the count correct? I have no idea. This is one of those "facts" that gets stated somewhere and turns into "truth" because it is repeated so often.

There is no question that combustion (of any substance that can burn) does create some harmful chemicals. But the number could range anywhere from a few hundred to many thousands.

What we do know is that about 99% of the health hazards are caused by the smoke, because that's where the most toxic and carcinogenic substances are found.


Tobacco does contain some naturally occuring chemicals that can be carcinogenic. A Swedish tobacco company has come up with a means of curing the tobacco that greatly reduces these Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines. That's why Swedish snus users live just as long as everone else. It is conceivable that some day these potential carcinogens could be totally eliminated from tobacco products. FMI see: Smokeless tobacco (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

 

[Territoo]

One percent of a mililiter might sound like a lot. We are talking about a highly toxic substance here. But many highly toxic substances are harmless or even helpful in small amounts.

How much is too much?

Assuming the cartridge held an entire ml of liquid, that you would need to take in the contents of 100 cartridges in a single day to accumulate a full ml of DEG. Anybody go through that much liquid in a day?

The Minimal Risk Level (MLR) is 0.8 ml of pure DEG per kilogram of body weight . So you would "only" need 80 ml of liquid per kilogram of body weight to reach the MLR.

Let's use 66 kg as an "average" body weight (feel free to plug in a different number). 80 times 66 = 5,280 cartridges total.

To put this into American measurements, that's 1.39 gallons of e-juice.

Now all of the above calculating assumes that the DEG actually makes it into the vapor. Which doesn't appear to be the case. So to get DEG poisoning, you might have to drink 1.39 gallons of e-juice. Hmmm... sure hope that's zero-nic juice.

It would take drinking even more ejuice to get to toxicity levels. The FDA only found DEG in one out of 18 cartridges. So one would have to drink 18 times the 1.39 gallons, or 25 gallons, to get a toxic dose of DEG.

 

[Kobudo]

It would take drinking even more ejuice to get to toxicity levels. The FDA only found DEG in one out of 18 cartridges. So one would have to drink 18 times the 1.39 gallons, or 25 gallons, to get a toxic dose of DEG.

And if you use US made liquids that have better quality control (or weren't tampered with/ contaminated by FDA researchers, if you like conspiracies), you may be able to drink hundreds of gallons of 0-nic liquids and never get any DEG...

 

[WOW]

OT - Kobudo, what is your avatar a photo of? I can't make it out. (grrr...)

 

[Kobudo]

It's my reflection in my sunglasses as I vape a KR8 with 901 atty in my office

 

[WOW]

It's my reflection in my sunglasses as I vape a KR8 with 901 atty in my office

Thanks, Kobudo! I would have never guessed but can make it out now! Cool!

 

[Bill Godshall]

Has anyone found out what (if any) action was taken (on the proposed e-cigarette regulation and/or the previously proposed public hearing) at last night's meeting of the Albany County Legislature's Health Committee?

- - -
Smokefree Pennsylvania sent the following letter to the following members of the Legislature's Health Committee (where the bill was referred) and to the two bill sponsors.

Everyone has my permission and encouragement to feel free to cut-and-paste and/or paraphrase this letter or portions thereof in letters, testimony, op/eds or other communications on these critically important matters.


Albany County Legislature Health Committee
Mary Lou Connolly, Chair maryloubc@acmenet.net
Lucille McKnight lmcknight@nycap.rr.com
Wanda Willingham wandafay12210@yahoo.com
Raymond Joyce raymond.joyce@us.ngrid.com
Gilbert Ethier (no known e-mail address)
Patrick Timmins patrick.timmins@albanycounty.com
Carl Zeilman carlzeilman@gmail.com
Ryan Horstmyer ryan.horstmyer@albanycounty.com
Lee Carman leebeck@nycap.rr.com

Bill Sponsors
Bryan Clenahan Clenahan bryan.clenahan@albanycounty.com
Brian Scavo brisca5@aol.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Godshall
To: Mary Lou Connolly ; Lucille McKnight ; Wanda Willingham ; Raymond Joyce ; Patrick Timmins ; Carl Zeilman ; Ryan Horstmyer ; Lee Carman ; Bryan Clenahan ; Brian Scavo
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:52 PM
Subject: Corrections/recommendations on e-cigarette proposal "G"


Dear Albany County Legislators:

While prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to minors is a policy endorsed by public health advocates and by e-cigarette suppliers and consumer groups, proposed Local Law No. "G" For 2010 in the Albany County Legislature at
File not found contains inaccurate, misleading and/or inflamatory statements in nine of the twelve paragraphs in Section 1. Legislative Intent, and there exists no evidence justifying a ban on the usage of these lifesaving products in indoor workplaces or public places.

E-cigarettes emit ZERO smoke, are clearly distinguishable from cigarettes, pose no known health or safety risks for nonusers Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled, and appear to be at least 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes (in contrast to claims in the 3rd and 6th paragraphs of Section 1).

While about 500,000 smokers in Ameria have switched to e-cigarettes in the past several years, and while many/most e-cigarette consumers have found the products effective for quitting smoking and improving respiratory health (which was confirmed in recently published surveys at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...458-10-231.pdf and THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) chapter 9), the vast majority of e-cigarette companies do NOT market their products as "safe" or as "smoking cessation" aids (as claimed in the 5th and 6th paragraphs of Section 1).

There is also no evidence that e-cigarettes have been marketed to (or used by) minors or non tobacco users (in contrast to claims in the 8th and 9th paragraphs of Section 1). But it would still be wise to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors (just like all other tobacco products).

In contrast to claims made in the 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 11th paragraphs of Section 1, nicotine accounts for less than 5% of the contents of e-cigarettes cartridges, nicotine is not toxic at levels levels found in e-cigarettes (or in tobacco products), and two recently published studies at http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010 Bullen ECig.pdf and http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...igarettes.html have confirmed that e-cigarettes emit significantly less nicotine than cigarettes, indicating that e-cigarettes may not contain/emit enough nicotine to create addiction.

Meanwhile, claims in the 6th paragraph of Section1 grossly misrepresent the FDA's laboratory test at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/S.../UCM173250.pdf, as the trace levels of several carcinogens found (in the FDA's lab test as well as in those conducted by e-cigarette companies) were nearly identical to levels of those same carcinogens found in FDA approved nicotine gums and patches http://www.starscientific.com/404/st...0tsna in.pdf Also, the one so-called toxin (diethelyene glycol) that was found in just one of nineteen e-cigarette samples tested by the FDA also was found at a trace level that poses no toxicity risk.

Please note that FDA Deputy Commissioner Josh Sharfstein similarly misrepresented evidence about e-cigarettes and the findings of the FDA's lab report at a press conference last year, which prompted the American Association of Public Health Physicians (which represents medical directors of local and state health departments) to formally petition the FDA to correct its misrepresentations of fact http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...DA-2010-P-0093 and to promulgate regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...DA-2010-P-0095

Finally, in regards to claims in the 7th paragraph of Section 1, although the FDA attempted to ban the import of e-cigarettes (by claiming they are unapproved drug devices), the FDA has been sued over this action, and Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon issued a ruling https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2009cv0771-54 in January denying FDA authority to regulate e-cigarettes as drug devices under the FDCA (and stipulating that the FDA can only regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA enacted by Congress last year). The DC Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments on the FDA's appeal in September, and a coalition of public health advocates (including Smokefree Pennsylvania) and e-cigarette consumer groups filed an amici curiae brief http://www................/Ouramicusbrief.pdf against the FDA and in support of Judge Leon's ruling.

Therefore, Smokefree Pennsylvania encourages the Albany County Legislature's Health Committee to amend/correct the inaccurate/misleading claims in Section 1, to eliminate the proposal's stated intent to ban the use of e-cigarettes where smoking is banned, and to approve Section's 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the proposed law.

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania or I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.

Sincerely,


William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[ezmoose]

I hear you Bill; but will they (Health Committee) hear you?

When it comes to E Cigarettes; open-mindedness, willingness to do complete and balanced research, and honesty seem be rare commodities in and around some legislative forums. I know, I’m preaching to the choir! lol

But, if nothing else, now they can’t claim they didn’t know or weren’t told!

The classic children’s excuses! lol

 

[crashinbrn]

This piece of trash written by one of the sponsoring Albany County legislators needs more responses!

Albany County Legislature ban sale of E-cigaret...

An excerpt: "The Albany County legislature finds and determines that these unregulated high tech smoking devices, called e-cigarettes contain vaporized liquid nicotine also contain glycol {the same thing as car antifreeze} substituted by the chinese manufacturing companies.

The Vapors are expelled via a cartridge that is made to look like a cigarette or pipe or cigar.

These vapors blown out by the smoker is the same a traditional cigarette, just as toxic. Indistinguishable!"

i have registered but it looks like it has been removed

404 Page not found

The page you requested is not available at http://www.allvoices.com. You can~

i have also searched there for it but i cannot seem to find it. i soo want to comment after reading the excerpt.

 

[yvilla]

Yes Crash, this piece of work disappeared suddenly several days ago, unfortunately just moments after I made a long and detailed second comment in response to some more outrageous stuff posted by the author/legislator/cosponsor after he saw some of the great comments we were all making! I don't think he could have even had a chance to read what I wrote.

But, I did send him, the other cosponsor of the Albany County bill, and all the Albany County Health Committee members a letter on behalf of CASAA in opposition to the bill, so I guess that makes up somewhat for my lost comment.

I intended to post that anyway, so I guess this is just as good a time and place to do so, so here it is - similar to the letter we sent to Northampton MA, but modified to address the specifics of the Albany County ordinance:

Re: Local Law "G" for 2010

Dear Albany County Officials:

Local Law "G" for 2010 states its purpose to both "ban the sale of e-cigarettes and like products in Albany County to persons under the age of 18" and "to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes and like products in public places where traditional forms of smoking are already disallowed". We fully support a ban on sales to minors, although there is no evidence that electronic cigarettes are either marketed to, or used by, young people. However, we strongly urge you to reject any provision that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in public places, as such a move would actually be contrary to public health in Albany County.

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) is a nationwide non-profit organization created by thousands of e-cigarette consumers who quit smoking or sharply reduced cigarette consumption by switching to these life saving products. Our association (comprised solely of concerned volunteers) works to educate the public about these and other smokeless products, and to protect the rights of our members and of smokers who want to switch to significantly less hazardous smoke-free tobacco/nicotine alternatives.

Your proposal to ban public use appears to be a direct result of misleading and skewed information released to the public and to the media by the FDA. This misinformation is not even supported by the actual laboratory results obtained in the FDA's own study of the nicotine cartridges sold with two electronic cigarette brands (the actual study results are available on the FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf, but are often ignored and overlooked in favor of the sensationalized spin released by the FDA).

Indeed, the study done by the FDA proved that (only) some of the cartridges tested had the same trace levels of TSNAs as do FDA approved nicotine replacement products, such as the nicotine patch. These non-carcinogenic levels of TSNAs are thousands of times lower than the carcinogenic levels found in cigarette smoke. And, many of the cartridges contained no TSNAs.

The misinformation given out by the FDA is so troubling and counter to the potential public health benefits achievable if large numbers of committed long-term smokers were to switch to smoke-free electronic cigarettes that the American Association of Public Health Physicians has invested much time and effort into two well-researched and documented petitions to the FDA, one urging it to correct the misinformation disseminated by the FDA (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0093), and one to drop its campaign to classify, and thus ban, e-cigarettes as unapproved "new drug products". (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0095)

Rather than banning public use in Albany County, the use of electronic cigarettes should instead be encouraged as a substitute for conventional cigarettes for cigarette smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit, but are sincerely interested in reducing their risk of smoking-related illness. Wholly contrary to the proposed law's statement that exhaled vapor constitutes a "'cloud' of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional cigarettes, cigars and pipes", many other lab analyses besides the FDA's own study show not only the chemical composition of electronic cigarette liquid, but also the safety of the vapor for both the user and bystanders. See for example, http://www.casaa.org/resources/lab.asp and especially http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ECigsExhaledSmoke.htm.

Electronic cigarettes simply deliver the nicotine desired by inveterate smokers, much as pharmaceutical NRT products do, but none of the CO, tar, and high concentrations of the thousands of other toxic and carcinogenic chemicals found in cigarette smoke.

As for the proposed law's statements about nicotine itself, it is extremely well documented that nicotine is not the cause of smoking-related disease and death; smoke is. Nicotine carries about the same health risk as another widely used addictive drug: caffeine. This is all documented on New York State's own website! See for example, http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/admed/documents/TobaccoMyths.pdf. Furthermore, electronic cigarettes actually deliver about one-tenth of the nicotine that conventional cigarettes do, puff for puff, and much of the nicotine inhaled is absorbed so that exhaled vapor contains very little nicotine; electronic cigarette vapor has more in common with the vapor you exhale on a cold day than it does with smoke from a conventional burning cigarette. There is no reason to believe that e-cig vapor is any more dangerous due to nicotine content than the vapor from a hot cup of coffee or the breath of a person using other smoke-free alternatives, or NRT products such as nicotine gum. See http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ECigsExhaledSmoke.htm or http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf. See also, a research study just published in the journal "Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention", finding that electronic cigarettes deliver no CO and very little nicotine, but do serve to reduce cravings for conventional cigarettes. A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic ?Cigarettes?: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects ? Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

And the visible vapor emitted by an electronic cigarette is produced primarily by propylene glycol, which the FDA lists as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), and which is widely used in theatrical fog, in children's toys, in thousands of pharmaceutical, food, air sanitation, and cosmetic products, and whose exposure to humans has been extensively studied since the 1950s. See for example, the 2006 EPA re-approval of propylene glycol for use as an air and surface disinfectant, primarily in hospitals and restaurants. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf

Banning the de minimis, odorless, quickly disappearing and wholly inoffensive mist of propylene glycol from public places will not protect or benefit public health. Rather, it would harm public health by encouraging some electronic cigarette users to switch back to lethal cigarettes, and by discouraging other smokers from switching to these far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. It would also subject those who have completely quit smoking by switching to electronic cigarettes to the involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke, as they are inappropriately herded into smoking areas.

Enclosed is a packet of resource materials, that we hope will be useful to you as you educate yourselves about electronic cigarettes and the true consequences of your proposals for the citizens of Albany County. Electronic cigarettes have been in use in the United States for more than three years, and there are currently hundreds of thousands of users. There are no reports of adverse effects, and innumerable reports of success in totally quitting conventional cigarettes, and improved health as a result.

As a final reference, we also urge you to read the heart-felt comments of thousands of users, who fear their very lives are being endangered by the misinformation and outright lies being promulgated throughout the US about electronic cigarettes to legislators and public officials such as yourselves. http://actsmoking.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1206.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Then of course, signed by myself and 5 other board members. And the packet we sent along with the letter was 17 more pages of good reference materials chosen for the campaign of opposing indoor bans. You can see that here: http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Legislative_Packet_Regarding_Indoor_Bans_Web.pdf

Whether and how this person can cling to his ignorance after that remains to be seen.

 

[Thulium]

First off, by saying chewing tobacco is "responsible for mouth cancer" you have been hoodwinked NOT by Big Tobacco, but by the anti-tobacco fanatics. Smokeless tobacco has 20-50% the risk of causing mouth cancer than cigarettes and a 1-2% risk overall. The antis have overblown the risks and withheld this vital information from the public and prohibited Big Tobacco from letting the public know (through advertising) that smokeless tobacco is a 98-99% safer alternative to smoking. So, who shouldn't be trusted now?

The CEO's of the Big Tobacco cover-up years are all long gone. (Not to say that they don't still lobby the legislatures and use politics to their advatage - but obviously, the legislatures are going along with it, so who is the bad guys?) The true health risks of smoking hasn't been a secret for 20 years or more. That "long history" IS history. No one can claim that Big Tobacco is still "blinding consumers" about the risks of cigarette addiction unless they've been living under a rock.

If anyone is blinding consumers about the risks of tobacco, it's public health groups who are making sure that the ONLY tobacco products available on the market are deadly tobacco cigarettes - by attempting to ban safer options such as e-cigarettes, snus and tobacco dissolvables/lozenges and LIE to the public about the fact that smokeless tobacco use isn't any more dangerous than habitually drinking coffee. So they keep smokers in the dark and let them die. And they've known this for 20+ years - so many of the vapers here on this forum could possibly have been smoke-free YEARS ago. So, who REALLY shouldn't be trusted?

To place the blame for the continued availability of cigarettes on the market only on Big Tobacco is naively ignoring the HUGE dependence upon tobacco tax revenues by the government, the BILLIONS of dollars collected by Big Pharma dependent upon the constant influx of smokers, the anti-tobacco/public health groups, whose very existence is based on funding from Big Pharma and finally, consumer demand - which all support BT. So, why blame only BT? They just sell what everyone wants. They even make it in much less harmful forms - smokeless alternatives - but all of these other groups have chosen cigarettes over the safer options, giving BT no reason to want to eliminate them from their line of products. We aren't talking about contanimated water here - this is a product that people CHOOSE to use, in spite of the well-known risks. You can't blame BT for selling cigarettes any more than you can demonize companies who sell junk food, alcohol or guns.

Big Tobacco will do what it takes to make money and e-cigs could make them money AND eliminate the bad image problem. They have been trying for years to offer alternatives that would be embraced by smokers - they developed better smokeless options, better flavors and attempted to develop less hazardous products. There have been marketing wars between companies to gain smoker loyalty. That wouldn't change if they got into the e-cigarette market. They would constantly be trying to improve the product and make it more appealing to vapers to win their business. There is no reason to believe that they would need to put in toxic or bad ingredients - as soon as word got out, that would dissolve their market share. The whole selling point of e-cigs is better health. They'd be stupid to risk that in this age of information. The fact that there are sellers worldwide and that e-cigs can be bought online will always be at the back of their minds. In order to beat them out and win consumers over, they'll have to offer the best.

Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, are more arrogant, IMO. They have the FDA and general public trust on their side. They'll charge what they want, make it as crappy as they want and expect people to put up with it. That's what they do with the "effective" nicotine products they put out now.

Personally, I'm more concerned that the public health groups are covering up the fact that smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes are a safe alternative and lying to the public. I find that much more abhorrent than even what BT did in lying about the health effects of smoking. No one expects BT to look out for anyone but their own bottom line - they are a business. But public health is supposed to be in the business of looking out for consumers and they are knowingly letting them die. It almost makes me say I'd start smoking again before ever using an NRT! 8-o I certainly would use smokeless tobacco before ever giving my money to Big Pharma or letting the smug nannies in public health get their way!

The reason it comes down to nicotine and not just tobacco, is because tobacco isn't the cause for all of the health issues - it's the smoke. And one HUGE reason many people smoke is for the nicotine and nicotine COMES from tobacco - whether it's in a tobacco leaf product, e-cigarette liquid or NRTs.

So, in order to be a purist or seek "revenge" on BT (or BP), as Bassnut was saying, you'd have to give up nicotine altogether. Because, so long as you use nicotine, you are still supporting Big Tobacco.

Anyhow, that's just how I feel about it. I can't speak for anyone else.

+infinity

You can speak for me, Kristin. Very well said. Bravo!

 

[ezmoose]

Whether and how this person can cling to his ignorance after that remains to be seen.

Hopefully someone more literate than Scavo will read it and explain what it says to him! lol

Excellent work!

 

[bassnut]

Thanks for posting the letter Yvilla and thanks for composing and sending it too!

 

[Kobudo]

I think we're all missing an important point when discussing e-cigarettes with anti-types:

Personal vaporizers can cure cancer!

I mean hell, if they can tell outright lies and get away with it, why can't we stretch truths well past their breaking points?

 

[Scucci]

I think we're all missing an important point when discussing e-cigarettes with anti-types:

Personal vaporizers can cure cancer!

I mean hell, if they can tell outright lies and get away with it, why can't we stretch truths well past their breaking points?

My hair grew back when I switch to a PV.

The water in my house is also softer now, and my birds learned to talk Italian! All because of my PV.

My car also starting getting 150 MPG since I switched to a PV.

 

[Nikhil]

Actually I've heard the PG in the vapor kills nearby airborne flu viruses, so they can prevent some diseases.

I think we're all missing an important point when discussing e-cigarettes with anti-types:

Personal vaporizers can cure cancer!

I mean hell, if they can tell outright lies and get away with it, why can't we stretch truths well past their breaking points?

 

[Kobudo]

My hair grew back when I switch to a PV.

The water in my house is also softer now

Maybe you're vaping in the shower too much?