Put down that E-cigarette!

[LaceyUnderall]

All of these anti-electronic cigarette articles.

I am curious as to why non of the authors of said articles, and I also focus this at the WHO, do not pick up on the fact that there have been three, yes three, separate labs world wide who have done studies on the cartridges. Sure, we need human testing, but a clinical trial has been done and we are just waiting for the details!

Three labs! There are products being sold world wide that have not been evaluated but by one lab, so you would think that three would get notice.

Clinical Trials and Testing of the Electronic Cigarette | e-Cigarettes - Electronic Cigarettes - links to the labs who have provided testing.

It is just like that horrible article written in the Oreganian. If I can find the information, you would think a legit journalist would be able to do the same. Am I the only one with Internet access?

What we have here is someone who is a disgruntled ex-smoker who gave up smoking 20 years ago and has turned her desire for a cigarette into an anti-smoking campaign. If she must suffer, everyone must suffer.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

OP! And apparently she is now moderating her comments since the first 18 were so anti her article.

 

[taz3cat]

The press seems to only want to write articles that are negative. Stories about good stuff are few and far between. The only news is bad news is their motto. If is not bad we will make it bad is one of there favorite pastimes..

 

[Chris From Cali]

Unfortunately its negativity that sells. Nobody wants to hear that angels are coming in 2012 everyone wants to hear it's the end of the world.

 

[Elle]

i'll never understand the anti-smoking extremists... proof they are never satisfied, huh?

i don't know if its about control, elitistism, or just not wanting to have to "look at smokers"... maybe all 3. but its sad and wrong.

 

[TropicalBob]

Having spent my entire adult career with newspapers, I can tell you that most of your theories are wrong. Here's what really happens:

An editor gets a press release, from, say, Crown7 or SmokingEverywhere, announcing their amazing new electronic cigarette. The editor scans it and gives it a reporter. The reporter, overwhelmed because staffs have been slashed in a lousy economy, reads it and begins a creative rewrite (terrible papers just run it as is!).

In the press release, the reporter will learn that e-cigs replace the nicotine that has addicted a smoker, allowing a smoker to easily quit cigarettes by cutting down the nicotine. The reporter will read that an e-cig isn't a smoking device, and thus can be used in all non-smoking areas. The reporter will read that these are catching on everywhere now (rush this into print to catch the trend wave!).

No phone calls will be made, except perhaps to the public relations number on the press release. That will be good for a quote further touting the value of the e-cig. Insert the quote and the story has practically written itself.

The reporter moves on to really important stuff like people committing suicide after being fired, a house fire that followed electricity being cut off, increasing robberies at small banks and convenience stores, a road rage wreck where the drivers were screaming at other through cell phones, and a feature on a mother of eight's third cousin once removed who lives in an adjacent town.

E-cigs might the most important news in the world to this forum's members, but they're just one more techno gadget to get in print and move on from.

It's lazy journalism. It's lousy. It's reality when all the veterans have been tossed on the street and every word printed is measured by ink and paper expenses.

 

[sherid]

I have some friends who own bars and have talked to them about allowing electronic cigarettes. One guy wanted to know before he did it that he would not get in trouble since there is a smoking ban in Ohio . I wrote to the Ohio Department of Health, and this was their response. I have since submitted two more questions and will post his answers when I get them.

Here is his answer:
Technically, electronic cigarettes are allowed in public places where smoking is banned. However, other patrons of establishments where smoking is banned may not understand the policy, and some confusion may result as to what the users of the electronic cigarettes may be using. In other words, other patrons may think tobacco is being used instead of electronic cigarettes.
________________________________
My question:
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 11:42 AM
To: Smoke Info
Subject: electronic cigarettes

Could you please respond with your policy for electronic cigarettes in places where smoking is banned. I am assuming that since they are not lit or produce any burning substance, contain no tobacco, and are vaporized rather than smoked; that it is legal to use them in bars and restaurants if the owner allows it. Obviously, e cigarettes also do not require ashtrays. Although they are not produced by a pharmaceutical company, e cigarettes function much like nicotine inhalers sold in drug stores for smoking cessation.

In case you are unfamiliar with electronic cigarettes, here is an introduction.

An electronic cigarette (or e-cigarette, e-cig) is a cigarette substitute<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_substitute>, giving small amounts of the chemical nicotine<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine> without tobacco<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco> or other chemicals from real cigarettes. The main substances making up in the liquid in the e-cigarettes are nicotine, propylene glycol<http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Propylene_glycol&action=edit&redlink=1>, gylcerin<http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gylcerin&action=edit&redlink=1> and some flavors<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor> or smells<http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell>.

 

[Vince1]

AARRGG, That was like a bad flashback to the movie "Reffer Madness" " If you smoke pot you WILL go insane, you WILL kill people" This could happen to you, and you, and YOU.!! Total B.S. propaganda.

 

[GoldenP51]

This was my response...doubt it will get posted but I put some work into it so I hope it gets read somewhere lol. Also didn't realize there were 3 studies, just knew of the one.


Where did you get your doctorate degree and what in? Did you actually READ the WHO blurb on e-cigarettes? Nobody has said (outside of marketing companies of the product) that e-cigarettes are more harmful or less harmful. The WHO is warning people not to buy them because they haven't been extensively tested yet.

This statement you made is rather scary "are supposed to deliver a fine nicotine mist to those who need a fix but instead deliver a noxious mix of toxic chemical additives" ...wait what? Is there a peer-reviewed study that you are privy to and the rest of the world is not? I haven't seen an independent study yet that says if the e-cigarette mist is unsafe OR safe.

The closest one done so far was done by Dr. Laugesen of NZ who was hired by Ruyan (an e-cig company) to independently test the chemicals. He reported that they are safe for the most part. One must of course take his study with a grain of salt and it needs to be replicated many more times and in many different labs before one comes to a conclusion as to the safety of e-cigarettes.

I agree that companies should not market the device as a safe alternative to smoking yet, because it has not been proven, but neither have the statements you made about it being "toxic."

As a "Doctor" one would think you would actually research things before posting information that hasn't been proven either way yet. I too am glad you aren't MY doctor nor one of my professors.

 

[Randall Fox]

Why should it matter (in regards to legality) whether it is "safe" or not?

I choose to skydive - it is not "safe" but it is my right.

Others choose to use alcohol - it is not "safe" (2 grandparents, 4 uncles/aunts died from alcohol-related disease, many of my cousins are on the way) but it is their right.

I can understand the anti-smokers complaints about second-hand smoke, and can understand laws based on their concerns.

What I can't understand is laws the prohibit me from engaging in activity which entails risk only to myself.

Please enlighten me.

 

[GoldenP51]

Why should it matter (in regards to legality) whether it is "safe" or not?

I choose to skydive - it is not "safe" but it is my right.

Others choose to use alcohol - it is not "safe" (2 grandparents, 4 uncles/aunts died from alcohol-related disease, many of my cousins are on the way) but it is their right.

I can understand the anti-smokers complaints about second-hand smoke, and can understand laws based on their concerns.

What I can't understand is laws the prohibit me from engaging in activity which entails risk only to myself.

Please enlighten me.

Skydiving is actually very safe (I've skydived)...it's more dangerous driving to a skydive facility than it is to actually skydive lol. The only thing that really makes it dangerous is when people try to take it to the extremes by doing tricks and base jumping etc.

Anyways I agree for the most part. The government feels its job is to keep us safe and under control (which also means taking away many of our freedoms). Where should the line be drawn between freedom and personal choice? I don't know.

The laws are there to "protect us" but not all of us are mindless idiots who need protecting. Can the ones that don't need to be protected by the government get a special card that says we are free to do as we choose as long as it doesn't interfere with other people?

Unfortunately no...I'm still waiting for the day that happens

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I can understand the anti-smokers complaints about second-hand smoke, and can understand laws based on their concerns.

What I can't understand is laws the prohibit me from engaging in activity which entails risk only to myself.

Please enlighten me.

And this is where the anti-smoking "fear" campaign is going to fall apart. Once *fingers crossed* it is proven fact that the vapor is absolutely harmless to those around the smoker, they will not be able to demonize this product... and if they do... it will be interesting to see how they do it.

They say their campaign is about health. We all know this is simply not true. If it were, the anti-smoking campaign would be all over the e-cig, getting their own testing and promoting this as a step in Tobacco Harm Reduction. Unfortunately, they are all or nothing. Their prohibition attempts towards nicotine will become evidently clear.

I think it will become quite evident to many non-smokers who aren't far fringe, just don't want to smell smoke, that "Wait? What's wrong with these? I hate smoke and they don't bother me."

 

[Randall Fox]

I wish I could share your optimism Lacey.

Unfortunately, my crystal ball says that nicotine will soon be an illegal drug (appx 10 years).

I see them going after caffeine next. Coffee and cola will probably be illegal by 2030.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I wish I could share your optimism Lacey.

Unfortunately, my crystal ball says that nicotine will soon be an illegal drug (appx 10 years).

I see them going after caffeine next. Coffee and cola will probably be illegal by 2030.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are dead on. It's a shame too... because nicotine has some wonderful properties if used properly.

OMG... I am going to be a mess in 2030... menopause... no nicotine... no coffee... I should just reserve my room at the institution now!

 

[TropicalBob]

Nicotine does have wonderful properties if used properly. Of that we agree. Since it's a drug with sometimes wonderful properties, it will be so labeled and thus made available only by prescription. That's your distant future. Big Pharma wins the prize of the world's addicts and their money.

As for today, how could any health group, sincere or otherwise, wrap its arms around e-smoking's present knowledge and endorse it? With all the obviously hazardous unknowns of this practice, no reputable health group will support it. What I know you want, and I do too, is for some reputable agency or organization to thoroughly investigate e-smoking.

And we'll live by the results of any unbiased investigation. What we want and need is not approval based on matters of personal choice or individual freedom, given that we're talking about addicts getting their drug. Those pleas will prove useless. We need knowledge. That's the winning formula. Without it, we lose. With it, we might get the backing of reputable agencies concerned with smokers' health more than Big Pharma profits.

Inflammatory rhetoric on forums won't influence the outcome (not accusing you of this, Lacey, but you've read the rants and manic outbursts of the aggrieved; keep them far away from your organized efforts on e-smoking's behalf).

 

[Chris From Cali]

ok so we all keep talking about how some studies need to be done to prove these products are safe, my question is what does it take?

Does it have to be over a certain amount of years? Does it HAVE to be done by the FDA?

Then again what does it matter, nobody has died from smoking weed and that's illigal. (Well it's actually legal here in Cali and the cops are pretty lenient about it, but some states don't have that luxury)

 

[Lithium1330]

Then again what does it matter, nobody has died from smoking weed and that's illigal. (Well it's actually legal here in Cali and the cops are pretty lenient about it, but some states don't have that luxury)

Smoking everything can cause cancer, the problem is the combustion, even mint can produce cancer if is smoked, of course some smokes are more dangerous than others, but at the end all smokes are bad, this is something almost anybody talk about, even a lot of bans just ban the combustion of tobacco but combusting anything is bad, even the smoke of a wildfire can cause cancer look:

Versión traducida de http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/science/newsid_7878000/7878584.stm

MedlinePlus: Marijuana Linked to Aggressive Testicular Cancer

Versión traducida de http://www.infobae.com/contenidos/361520-100799-0-La-marihuana-puede-conducir-un-c%C3%A1ncer-pulm%C3%B3n

Versión traducida de http://www.intramed.net/actualidad/contenidover.asp?contenidoID=58215

Versión traducida de http://www.terra.com/salud/articulo/html/sal17724.htm

Versión traducida de http://www.diariosalud.net/content/view/7262/413/

(In the automatic traslation snuff should be read as tobacco).

 

[GoldenP51]

ok so we all keep talking about how some studies need to be done to prove these products are safe, my question is what does it take?

Does it have to be over a certain amount of years? Does it HAVE to be done by the FDA?

Then again what does it matter, nobody has died from smoking weed and that's illigal. (Well it's actually legal here in Cali and the cops are pretty lenient about it, but some states don't have that luxury)

There will have to be LOTS of studies. There will have to be both short and long-term studies, as well as having a large and diverse sample of people (and rats and other animals) participate. Most likely there will have to be studies done on animals before studies are approved to do on humans.

The studies need to include smokers, non-smokers, placebos, different liquids, different mixtures of liquids, different e-cigs etc... and even THEN these studies will have to be repeated in other labs and reviewed by other academia. There are tons of variables that need to be accounted for in said studies and conducting them is time consuming and expensive!

In other words it will take a very long time. As interest grows about the product though, so will interest to study it which is good as the main problem with studies is getting funding.

The FDA? I'm not even sure that they do their own studies, they rely a lot on other peer-reviewed studies...what we need to do is get Universities to do the studies. It would make a GREAT graduate student project or a good project for a University professor trying to gain some attention.

So you might write to your local colleges and ask them if they plan on doing a study on the safety of e-cigarettes...it might spark an idea in their head to be one of the first to study it and work to get the funding!

 

[surbitonPete]

I think E-'smoking' 'does' have a chance of beating the system and that's because the authorities know that by force or by education they are never going to be able to stop people smoking tobacco......but E-smoking has the potential to make everyone do it voluntarily...... all it really needs is for E-cigarettes to be much more reliable and freely available and I am sure most smokers will freely convert to vaping........ and even if it isn't scientifically proven to be healthier I think few people are going to believe that it isn't.

 

[Di]

...what we need to do is get Universities to do the studies. It would make a GREAT graduate student project or a good project for a University professor trying to gain some attention.

I have suggested this exact thing twice already,
bout time some uni prof, or student took it up now, eh, ..................

Di .......