The vapor image problem - "eCigarettes"

[Milhaus]

The title pretty much says it all, just got my first unit 2 days ago. The reason? Years hearing about this system and being put off by the gimmick "eCigarettes". I never took it seriously and was actually deterred from even looking into it by the name.

All of these political entities are easily swayed by fanatical and ignorant anti-smoking crusaders, and the pharma companies making a boat load of money off of old smoking cessation products like patches, gum and lozenges because of one thing - the word cigarettes.

People really are that simple. Cigarette = bad. That's all a City, State, or Federal politician needs to hear and they will immediately crucify the nearest thing that says cigarette on it when a complaint rolls in. You all know it's true. We have to disarm the problem for them, and then they simply won't care.

So to solve the problem with government you need to solve the problem with the image. We do in fact need the FDA to regulate and standardize and license the production and distribution and sale of these systems.

Using a more accurate name like personal vaporizer, or personal nebulizer defuses the emotional response. After that it is about the nicotine, and propylene glycol (used in the delivery of countless medications, foods, and cosmetics and has been declared GRAS by the FDA) Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see "Bases" section. Certainly far safer than the hundreds of poisons contained in tobacco smoke, but you already knew that.

My apologies for the wall of text, but after smoking tobacco for 25 years and suffering the side effects, I believe in vapor delivery of nicotine.

The merchandising industry around the products is not helping either, another thing that FDA supply chain regulation might help with as well.

I know you don't want to hear it, but it would actually help vaping big time if one of the big pharma companies started offering vaporizers in their smoking cessation line up.

One more thing, most of these long time anti-smoking organizations have moved from a philosophy of helping smokers quit, into more of a war on anyone who uses nicotine. I don't think that many of them are our friends anymore, and certainly not when it comes to supporting something that has the word cigarette right in the name.

I also realize that the title of this website has the word ecigarette in it, I do not mean any offense. On the contrary, your site was an island of support in a sea of crappy false advertising and scams. So thank you.

 

[Vocalek]

Welcome to the Jungle, Milhaus.

You have caught on quickly to a number of issues, not the least of which is that the organizations that claim to be in support of "public health" have lost sight of the original goal: reduce the burden of disease and death caused by smoking. Instead, as you have correctly perceived, their goal is to stamp out nicotine use altogether.

I was naive back in 2009 when I switched from smoke to vapor. I thought that the alphabet organizations like ACS, ALA, and AHA would be jumping for joy to hear that something had come along that was working to help folks who had quit hundreds of times to finally stay quit! Instead they, along with Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, have formed a coalition that aims to get e-cigarettes off the market. Who would have thought?

Then, like you, I started noticing that "smoke free zone" had morphed into "tobacco free zone." Many of us were outraged when we learned that decades of research on Swedish smokers who switched to a low-nitrosamine form of smokeless tobacco called snus have no higher risk of CV disease and cancer than former smokers who gave up all use of tobacco. Had we known this 20 years ago, we could have avoided 20 additional years of smoke-damage.

And yes, the opposition has grown into a "no nicotine" policy. At first, I thought it was just ignorance on the part of the employers (many hospital groups) that began testing for nicotine. If they want to practice employment discrimination against smokers, they can accomplish this by testing for exhaled carbon monoxide. But testing for nicotine also discriminates against anyone who has switched to much safer smokeless tobacco, an e-cigarette, and even those using pharmaceutical nicotine "smoking cessation" products. Many of these bigots are actually admitting that they don't care where the nicotine came from...they won't hire anyone who tests positive for nicotine. So it is no longer about saving lives. It is about controlling lives.

We didn't invent the name "electronic cigarette." The company that marketed the original product decided on the name. They were trying to capture a portion of the tobacco (smoked) cigarette marketplace, so the name of the product conveyed that idea to the intended audience.

But reread everything that came before the above paragraph. Knowing that the "tobacco control community" has turned into the "nicotine prohibition society," do you really believe that a different name would make any difference? They would fight this class of products regardless of what we name them. The media has taken up using the name e-cigarettes when reporting on the products, so we are more or less stuck with that name for now.

The opposition has two reasons to fight this product. Those who are moralists cannot abide any form of addiction, so all nicotine use (other than temporary use of NRTs to wean off nicotine) must be wiped out. That's why they insisted on misleading labels on smokeless tobacco products. And that's why they are fighting to abolish not only e-cigarettes, but also products such as dissolvable orbs (which are 99% like Commit / Nicorette lozenges), strips, and sticks off the market. They don't want any type of less hazardous replacement product to be out there.

They would rather see you gasping for your last breath than happily playing with your grandchildren while using a reduced risk method of nicotine intake.

The other reason to declare war on e-cigarettes is monetary. The alphabet organizations get a large chunk of their funding from the pharmaceutical companies that make marginally effective "smoking cessation" products. These big pharma companies also provide the lions share of smoking cessation research funding, which keeps the John Connolly, Stan Glantz, and Jonathan Winicoffs of this world spouting the company line and using sophisitcated propaganda techniques to mislead the public about the relative safety of various nicotine products.

Have you looked into CASAA? The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association was formed right here on ECF by a couple thousand former smokers who were not about to let our newly acquired "former smoker" status be wrenched away by the "dark side." CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to provide smokers and non-smokers alike with truthful information about such alternatives.

Our mission is to ensure the availability of effective, affordable and reduced harm alternatives to smoking by increasing public awareness and education; to encourage the testing and development of products to achieve acceptable safety standards and reasonable regulation; and to promote the benefits of reduced harm alternatives.

 

[throatkick]

Milhaus,

1. Be happy you found vaping
2. Do not let organizations with nefarious agendas discourage you
3. If you dig deep enough you will find similar control in all aspects of your life. Vaping doesn't have exclusivity.
4. Make sure you quit smoking and then I'm certain you can find a way to contribute to the cause

All the best and welcome!!!!!

 

[Rickajho]

What I find amusing(?) in the nicotine wars is all the major hospitals in metro Boston have ceased their smoking cessation programs, effectinve April or May 2011. One week I'm talking to someone at Brigham & Women's hospital about quitting with e-cigarettes. She is providing me with info about what's going on in the local medical community with e-cig cessation trials and testing. A week later I call to follow up with this person and I get a pre-recorded message telling me the smoking cessation department has closed and to call the State wide 800 quit number for cessation help!? Tried three other major hospitals in the Boston area and found the same thing.

Any of us in MA who have tried calling that 800 quit line have probably found it to be as big a joke as I did over the years. After 05:00 p.m. you can supposedly listen to pre-recorded "inspirational" messages. Give me a break...

It isn't necessarily puzzling to me that this has happened, due to the very ineffectiveness of big pharma quit smoking aids used in these cessation groups. Even when the nic replacement therapies are handed out for free or significantly reduced costs. Statistically, there is supposed to be a (slightly) higher success quit rate when NRT is used in combination with a support group. But if that was working so well they why did the hospitals close down the programs? Because everyone quit smoking?

I don't think so...

 

[Nicko]

Thanks Elaine. As usual, exactly to the point. Totally brilliant.

Thanks for calling the ANTZ bigots. That's exactly what they are. I've often thought zealots is not strong enough to describe them. Bigots is far more appropriate.

When we look at the numbers of deaths, these people are exterminating far more than the Nazi death camps ever did.

Even the KKK never did such damage.

How can a sane American society have such disdain for what Hitler did, and yet support a current regime that allows so-called health groups to support policies that guarantee a horrible, nasty death to millions of people? It totally defies any logic.

Milllions of smokers, (globally) would switch to safe alternatives if they knew they existed.

Thanks again, especially Elaine for the amazing research and work that you do.

 

[Traver]

It seems like most of the people here are convinced that tobacco smokers don't switch to e-cigs because of the propaganda put out by the anti-smoking industry. I wonder if that really is the reason. How much do we really know about why people won't make the transition to a safer method like e-cigs?

 

[Milhaus]

Ok, I didn't realize that the word filter would prevent me explaining exactly why getting rid of the word cigarettes will make anti-smoking groups have less of an effect. I need to talk about what happened to an illegal drug to be able to do that.

I can't leave this post up because it wouldn't make any sense, and I am assuming that defeating the word filter is against policy here.

Good luck.

 

[rothenbj]

Thanks Elaine. As usual, exactly to the point. Totally brilliant.

Thanks for calling the ANTZ bigots. That's exactly what they are. I've often thought zealots is not strong enough to describe them. Bigots is far more appropriate.

When we look at the numbers of deaths, these people are exterminating far more than the Nazi death camps ever did.

Even the KKK never did such damage.

How can a sane American society have such disdain for what Hitler did, and yet support a current regime that allows so-called health groups to support policies that guarantee a horrible, nasty death to millions of people? It totally defies any logic.

Milllions of smokers, (globally) would switch to safe alternatives if they knew they existed.

Thanks again, especially Elaine for the amazing research and work that you do.

Makes you wonder if it's a war to save lives or just a very hard hitting marketing approach for selling product. If you really want to save lives, you'd take the money spent on the nicotine wars and use it to battle malnutrition a much larger issue globally. Of course there is that other issue, over population so you go back to the war on "puffing the nicotine", as the CTers call it. Why is anyone concerned about keeping the old, unproductive alive anyway? All they do is cost the social system and cause trouble. I represent that remark.

 

[Luisa]

The title pretty much says it all, just got my first unit 2 days ago. The reason? Years hearing about this system and being put off by the gimmick "eCigarettes". I never took it seriously and was actually deterred from even looking into it by the name.

All of these political entities are easily swayed by fanatical and ignorant anti-smoking crusaders, and the pharma companies making a boat load of money off of old smoking cessation products like patches, gum and lozenges because of one thing - the word cigarettes.

People really are that simple. Cigarette = bad. That's all a City, State, or Federal politician needs to hear and they will immediately crucify the nearest thing that says cigarette on it when a complaint rolls in. You all know it's true. We have to disarm the problem for them, and then they simply won't care.

So to solve the problem with government you need to solve the problem with the image. We do in fact need the FDA to regulate and standardize and license the production and distribution and sale of these systems.

Using a more accurate name like personal vaporizer, or personal nebulizer defuses the emotional response. After that it is about the nicotine, and propylene glycol (used in the delivery of countless medications, foods, and cosmetics and has been declared GRAS by the FDA) Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see "Bases" section. Certainly far safer than the hundreds of poisons contained in tobacco smoke, but you already knew that.

My apologies for the wall of text, but after smoking tobacco for 25 years and suffering the side effects, I believe in vapor delivery of nicotine.

The merchandising industry around the products is not helping either, another thing that FDA supply chain regulation might help with as well.

I know you don't want to hear it, but it would actually help vaping big time if one of the big pharma companies started offering vaporizers in their smoking cessation line up.

One more thing, most of these long time anti-smoking organizations have moved from a philosophy of helping smokers quit, into more of a war on anyone who uses nicotine. I don't think that many of them are our friends anymore, and certainly not when it comes to supporting something that has the word cigarette right in the name.

I also realize that the title of this website has the word ecigarette in it, I do not mean any offense. On the contrary, your site was an island of support in a sea of crappy false advertising and scams. So thank you.

The Pharma companies already have a vaporizing nicotine inhaler in their arsenal--it is just not effective.

 

[CJsKee]

Makes you wonder if it's a war to save lives or just a very hard hitting marketing approach for selling product. If you really want to save lives, you'd take the money spent on the nicotine wars and use it to battle malnutrition a much larger issue globally. Of course there is that other issue, over population so you go back to the war on "puffing the nicotine", as the CTers call it. Why is anyone concerned about keeping the old, unproductive alive anyway? All they do is cost the social system and cause trouble. I represent that remark.

Seems "they" have an answer for that, too...

 

[rothenbj]

CJ, that is the kind of disconnect that I find so troubling today. In a lot of ways I support not providing advanced care for the elderly. I personally don't want to exist if I can't be self sufficient and I'd rather be terminated than permanently incapacitated. They won't let that decision be made between doctor and patient but will allow an admin board to be made god and oversee such decisions.

I quit smoking, not because of some do gooder's coaxing, but because I stumbled into E Cigs on a lark and was tired of coughing and wheezing from FSC smokes. I say get off the smoker's back or just make cigarettes illegal. This dehumanizing baby step approach is immoral and I really don't see it as a concern for longevity. Conversations like the one you attached make it all the more apparent.

I personally believe that anyone that wishes to cling to life, no matter how limited, should be able to do so and those that have the opposite view should be able to make that decision also, without some nanny stepping in to make that decision for you.

 

[CJsKee]

Well said, Jim...agree 100%

 

[Vocalek]

Wow...that is one scary interview. Looks like I have 4 years and 6 weeks to develop any condition that requires neurosurgery, after which I am SOL--nothing more than a "unit" that receives "comfort care." *Shiver*

 

[CJsKee]

Just a note: I saw that video and it fit in with what Jim was saying...I have no idea how "authentic" it is. It is chilling, though.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Just a note: I saw that video and it fit in with what Jim was saying...I have no idea how "authentic" it is. It is chilling, though.

I happened to catch that one live and apparently several people called in over the break they were going to with the same question. Mark said they had vetted the Doctor before they put him on the air, so it looks like they had good reason to trust him.

 

[LibertyValance]

Just for an alternative view -

A lot of people like to blame "they" for everything. "They" can be big Pharma, the "government" (nevermind that's us), Obama and friends (if you are far right), the Koch brothers, lobbyists, etc, if you are a liberal, and on and on.

While there is certainly a bit of truth in all charges, there are less insidious ones too. Some groups are just being cautious. The safety of vaporized nicotine blasting into your lungs and bronchial passages all day has never been tested in a long term (at least two or three decades) study obviously. Its certainly not out of the question that in 20 years ecigs will be come a disaster product, actually worse than the one they replaced (smoked tobacco).

Note I don't think that is a very likely outcome. But I don't think you can say scientifically its an impossible outcome either.

At least in the US, drugs are supposed to have a proven safety record before they can be legally used. As no such safety record exists for vaping, its scientifically correct that a lot of organizations have issues with them.

The fact that so much of our product comes from basements or homebrew kitchen counters doesn't help things either.

While big pharma obviously has their own agenda besides making drugs, many other organizations particularly the FDA hospitals etc. have the public safety at heart.

This will take time. When methadone was suggested as a replacement maintenance therapy it took many years to become a widely accepted treatment. The whole concept of harm reduction without a perfect outcome is hard for many people and organizations to adopt in a binary thinking world.

Its fantastic that lobbying and advocacy groups are coming online that promote vaping. For most of my life we were told that both red wine and coffee were bad for us. It is only now after thousands of years of use and countless studies that we now think that both products are actually beneficial.

So it may take 40 or 50 years before we really "know" the benefits and risks of ecigs. Until then I am willing to take the risk but I admit its based only on an informed guess and not of any scientific data. Some organizations just can't operate on an informed guess.

 

[tommy2bad]

"Some organizations just can't operate on an informed guess."
Well the thing is sometimes thats all they have to go on.
If the purpose is to act in the interest of public safety or health then not acting is the same as causing harm.
Acting as though no data was the same as data that showed damage is outright lying and is effectively harm in itself.

 

[mooreted]

They can take the cautious approach all they want. My main sticking point is: it's my body. I can drink gasoline all day if I want. It isn't the government's job to protect me from myself.

Our current nanny-state environment causes more harm than good especially when it comes to personal freedom.

 

[Stubby]

The fact that so much of our product comes from basements or homebrew kitchen counters doesn't help things either.

While big pharma obviously has their own agenda besides making drugs, many other organizations particularly the FDA hospitals etc. have the public safety at heart.

This will take time. When methadone was suggested as a replacement maintenance therapy it took many years to become a widely accepted treatment. The whole concept of harm reduction without a perfect outcome is hard for many people and organizations to adopt in a binary thinking world.

So it may take 40 or 50 years before we really "know" the benefits and risks of ecigs. Until then I am willing to take the risk but I admit its based only on an informed guess and not of any scientific data. Some organizations just can't operate on an informed guess.

The idea of tobacco harm reduction has been around since the early 90's when Brad Rodu came out with his studies on smokeless tobacco. The same organizations that have problems with electronic cigarettes also have problems with smokeless tobacco and the science supporting harm reduction with smokeless has been around for quite some time. There is no rational argument against it which leads us to the current state of irrational arguments against tobacco harm reduction.

The difference between methadone and tobacco harm reduction is largely money. There are many millions flowing into tobacco control groups, plus billions in taxes collected and of course the money going to BP for ineffective cessation products. There are lots of interested parties that are doing just fine with the current situation. Everyone is doing just fine..... except for the misinformed public who actually use tobacco and are still smoking, because everything else is just as bad or worse..... or so the good folks from the ABC groups, medical establishment, and our own government keeps telling us. The idea of harm reduction is a monkey wrench in the free flow of money.

I can't disagree with your idea on homebrew kitchens. We certainly do need consumer based regulation to set some standards for the production e-liquid. I would guess it would put some small time operations out of business but so be it. If they don't have enough resources to guarantee the safety of there product they shouldn't be in business. In the long run if it's not us it's going to be the FDA.

 

[brittanyNI]

I have to admit I am concerned about government regulation for a number of reasons.

If we leave the vaping world and look at industry in general, we find that regulation tends to favor whoever is biggest and in many cases can effectively prevent a small entity from entering a business in that market at all. At one time I developed a novel method of antibiotic creation. What i faced was really demoralizing when I discovered in a frank discussion with an attorney that for all practical purposes I would never be able to benefit from it. So the world will never see that. The greatest quantum strides in science were made by individual people with individual ideas on individual budgets, and regulation effectively ices them out of a market or consigns them to the role of paid help where they work to make other people rich.

Regulation certainly has the potential to do the same thing with e-cigs. That's my first concern.

My second concern is cost. Right now you can get a quality kit of various sorts for $30 and if you want to DIY you can make your juice really cheap. Or you can buy it from a number of vendors for very very little compared to the price of cigarettes.

But what would the cost be like if regulations left us with only 3 e-liquid companies, all of whom had to add a $6 per 20mg tax on the nicotine plus had to pay for millions in testing annually? Pretty soon, just like standard NRT, it would be cost prohibitive.

This is without looking at the actual content of regulations.

Of course, on the other side, we all know someone could conceivably make an e-cig that was of poor quality and exploded or e-juice laced with strychnine for an extra edge or something. So I can understand to some degree the safety aspect of regulation; not that the existence of such regulations actually manages to protect us from about preventable 100,000 deaths annually from medical errors including overdoses of highly regulated prescription drugs or from the travesties of phen-phen or the Dalkon Shield.

I suppose to some extent you have to say "Well, they are going to regulate us anyway so we might as well make peace with them and hope by playing nice the regulations won't be TOO onerous" but at the same time I think efforts should be made to balance the need for regulation against reasonable concerns about cost and fostering innovation and competition.