Townhall: Where's the Fire?

[jamie]

Where's the Fire?
by Jacob Sullum, Townhall
Wednesday, April 08, 2009

The first time Tom Kiklas saw an electronic cigarette, he recalls, "I couldn't stand it … I thought, 'I don't want to be involved in this.' I'm an anti-smoking kind of guy."

But after Kiklas realized that electronic cigarettes, a.k.a. e-cigarettes, deliver nicotine without tobacco or combustion products, thereby eliminating virtually all of the health hazards associated with smoking, he was comfortable becoming media relations director for inLife, one of the companies that sell the devices in the United States. Unfortunately, many anti-smoking activists and public health officials are stuck in that first stage of visceral antipathy toward anything that resembles cigarettes, an emotional reaction that could prove deadly for smokers.

Last week, the House of Representatives approved a bill that authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate tobacco products. Lest anyone think that cigarettes will be safer as a result, the bill prohibits manufacturers from mentioning FDA regulation, saying, "consumers are likely to be confused and misled" if they know about it.

Meanwhile, supporters of the bill, which the Senate will consider later this year, are demanding that the FDA ban e-cigarettes, a potentially life-saving alternative for smokers, as unauthorized drug delivery devices. Last month, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who brags that he is "one of the Senate's leaders in protecting Americans from the dangers of smoking," urged the FDA to take e-cigarettes off the market "until they are proven safe." The next day, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids applauded Lautenberg's position.

Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, did not. "This is about as idiotic and irrational an approach as I have ever seen in my 22 years in tobacco control and public health," he wrote on his blog. "A public policy maker who touts himself as being a champion of the public's health as well as some of the leading national health advocacy organizations is demanding that we ban what is clearly a much safer cigarette than those on the market, but that we allow, protect, approve and institutionalize the really toxic ones."

Introduced by the Chinese company Ruyan in 2004, e-cigarettes produce water vapor containing nicotine and the food additive propylene glycol. The tip of the battery-powered "cigarette" lights up when a user sucks on it, and the vapor looks like smoke, but it dissipates immediately and contains none of the toxins and carcinogens that are generated when tobacco burns.

Given the enormous differences between this vapor and tobacco smoke, the companies that sell e-cigarettes online and from shopping mall kiosks are on firm ground in advertising them as safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes that can be used in places where smoking is banned. The arguments of e-cigarette opponents, by contrast, reek of red herrings.

The critics warn that nicotine is addictive, that it may contribute to cardiovascular problems, and that smokers may use e-cigarettes as way of coping with smoking bans, continuing their habits instead of quitting. All of these objections also apply to the nicotine gum, patches, sprays and inhalers the FDA has approved as safe and effective smoking cessation tools.

E-cigarettes are less expensive than those products and may be more appealing to smokers looking for an experience that's closer to the real thing. Although they have not been subject to the sort of rigorous testing the FDA demands for new drugs, the drug they contain is not new. It's the same one delivered, in a much dirtier manner, by the cigarettes that the government says kill 400,000 Americans every year.

"The standard for lower-risk products for use by current smokers," argues the American Association of Public Health Physicians, "should be the hazard posed by cigarettes, not a pharmaceutical safety standard." Telling smokers they may not use e-cigarettes until they're approved by the FDA is like telling a floundering swimmer not to climb aboard a raft because it might have a leak.

link: Jacob Sullum : Where's the Fire? - Townhall.com

 

[cucurucho]

Good article, we need more like this... but I wince every time I see the words 'water vapour'.

 

[StudioKraft]

I wince every time I see the words 'water vapour'.

I have the same reaction to "proven safe", but for different reasons. I think what they really mean is "approved by the FDA", which could mean any number of things.

Can you really prove that something is "safe", or can you only say that "given everything that we know now, unless you are a complete idiot and use this product in a manner inconsistent with its design, it shouldn't hurt you".

 

[Lithium1330]

OT: Maybe it is water, I have read somewhere that what you see is really water that sticks to the PG or VG when exhaled, I not saying it is in fact water vapor, I don't have enough info or a link to any study saying it is water vapor, basically because there is little studies about inhaling PG or VG, maybe there are not a lot of studies just because it is not needed due to the previous ones that show that the PG is very safe, but for me the theory that what we see is the water sticked to the evaporated PG looks possible.

On topic: That was a very good article.

 

[green-lantern]

Telling smokers they may not use e-cigarettes until they're approved by the FDA is like telling a floundering swimmer not to climb aboard a raft because it might have a leak.

This right here is one of the best quotes I have read about the subject yet.

 

[IntoxiNation]

This is a very good article (something I never thought I would say about Townhall). Another good thing about it is that a lot of elected officials read Townhall, mostly on the right. Hopefully this will help filter out some of the misconceptions out there that are trying to destroy our love.

 

[Nick O'Teen]

OT: Maybe it is water, I have read somewhere that what you see is really water that sticks to the PG or VG when exhaled,

That's my understanding also - glycols are emulsifiers when used in liquids like ice cream/mayonnaise/hand cream/etc. that keep water-based liquids broken up into fine droplets to maintain the texture, and stop mixtures separating. In a gas this is is called an "aerosol" not an "emulsion" - the properties of glycols are such that a sudden temperature drop from the water vapour state (invisible steam,) when it's sucked out from the hot atomizer makes the water condense visibly around the glycol droplets.
You can make visible vapour without glycols of course, but the steam from a kettle has to be much hotter and is much shorter-lasting (and you wouldn't really want to suck it into your lungs!)

Great article!

 

[TropicalBob]

Well crafted article from an author on our side. This makes the arguments to leave e-smoking alone as well as any we've seen so far.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Brilliantly done. I think we are beginning to see a trend here of well written, pro ecig articles. Now get ready for a rash of them from the other side. They are being called out and they aren't going to like it much.

 

[leaford]

Love it, love it, love it!

 

[TropicalBob]

You know, with just about any topic, there are two sides. If something goes to trial, you hear the prosecution first. Sounds good. Then you hear the defense. Sounds good. E-smoking is no different. There are two sides to fully legalizing them and we're hearing those sides.

What we need, however, is to stop the rush to judgment that Lautenberg initiated. We need a delay of verdict. We need articles like this one to help make the case for delay. We need someone with government's ear to shout: With all the e-cigs sold and in use, over more than a year, where's the harm to society? Where's the benefit (try reading this forum)?

If we can get a few more reasonable arguments in play, we might have a chance for the FDA to say, "Let's accumulate some more data on this topic before we jump to a conclusion." I think that's the best we can hope for, since outright approval seems unrealistic. Let e-cig sales remain a manufacturer's liability, as it is now, not a matter of public concern for a regulatory agency.

We're hearing the other side now. Will the Big Judge listen?

 

[OutWest]

Thanks for finding and posting this, Jamie. So nice to read a positive article, and one that was in Townhall no less!

 

[MonkeyMonk]

Excellent article! Thanks for posting, jamie.

 

[Eirelin]

I was just coming here to post this

 

[Tone]

maybe Suppliers should target the smoking congressman?/legislators and send them units to try out?

 

[Hexum]

Now THIS is a good article! Thanks for sharing, TU&R

 

[jerimiah797]

Here's the article on Reason.com. Still a conservative site (economically and politically) but a little less sensationalist about it.

Where's the Fire?: The rush to ban electronic cigarettes is hazardous to smokers' health. - Reason Magazine

 

[strayling]

What we need, however, is to stop the rush to judgment that Lautenberg initiated. We need a delay of verdict. We need articles like this one to help make the case for delay. We need someone with government's ear to shout: With all the e-cigs sold and in use, over more than a year, where's the harm to society? Where's the benefit (try reading this forum)?

Another factor which makes any delay work to our advantage is the rate at which people are switching from analogs to e-cigs. The floodgates started to open around February of this year when a whole bunch of people (myself included) gave e-cigs a try, and with the recent tobacco tax rise in the US many, many more are switching over. I personally know of at least 5 people who have bought e-cigs in the past 2 weeks and I'd guess that's not too unusual.

Consider also that the tax rises have yet to really bite. Retailers are still selling old stock and a lot of smokers have bought extra as a way to stave off the increased cost. Over the next few weeks they'll both start to run out and e-cigs will look more and more interesting.

The time to try and ban e-cigs was a year ago when hardly anyone had heard of them, and I think the prohibitionists have now missed the boat.

 

[Nick O'Teen]

Another factor which makes any delay work to our advantage is the rate at which people are switching from analogs to e-cigs. The floodgates started to open around February of this year when a whole bunch of people (myself included) gave e-cigs a try, and with the recent tobacco tax rise in the US many, many more are switching over. I personally know of at least 5 people who have bought e-cigs in the past 2 weeks and I'd guess that's not too unusual.

Yes - and it will rise exponentially now, as friends and friends of friends see the benefits of vaping and try it. I've made 2 converts already, and can see a whole lot more getting into it. I think there's a critical mass that can be achieved in any given social network (friends, work colleagues, whatever,) - one vaper in a group could be an anomaly, several looks like a tide, and makes the others much more willing to give it a go.

 

[OutWest]

^ agreed. My public use of my 901 has resulted in 8 other people (that I know of) converting from analogs. It truly is growing exponentially.