No chance in heck of me keeping it to 2000...
In case you are bored:
Dear sirs,
I am a very concerned citizen with a personal interest. I have been a pack a day a smoker for 26 years, and during that time attempted to quit numerous times. This includes but is not limited to:
- cold turkey
- zyban
- nicotine inhaler
- patch
While I do not have any major health issues at this time, I have come to appreciate the health benefits of quitting smoking. Unfortunately, all of my previous attempts to quit smoking have failed. I have never been able to quit for more than 2 weeks due to side effects, which included:
- vivid nightmares
- serious anxiety and
- panic attacks
When a coworker showed me a disposable electronic cigarette (ecigarette or ecig), I decided to give it a shot. While these devices do not promise to help quit smoking, I tried it. I imediately felt a glimmer of hope that it could succeed. From that first disposable, I quickly discovered a market and upgraded to more effective brands. The real value to smokers is by mimicing many of behavioral traits of smoking a cigarette, the nicotine urge is met, as well as all other psychological habits.
To date, I have not had a cigarette in over 2 months, and feel a high level of confidence that as long as ecigarettes are available, that I will not smoke another cigarette again. With my new found interest, I searched for information on the health effects of electronic cigarettes. I was dismayed by the criticism of non-smoking groups, and legal actions taken by some local and state governments. While the electronic cigarette may appear from a distance like smoking, it does not have the same negative impact to non-smokers or to the ecig consumer. It appears that much of the negativity is based on the false conclusions drawn from the physical appearance alone.
I have found through my research no evidence of any kind that suggest any ill health effects of using ecigs. While in one test, trace amounts of a carcinogen may have been found, the level is so low that any objective study would note it in passing, and state it is at levels safe for consumption. Even poisons and other contaminents are regularly found in foods that are deemed acceptable levels, and approved by the FDA. However, it appears that the study was not scientific, with a predisposition to provide negative press. Even now, I believe the FDA web site refers to the same study to regarding the "contaminent". Because contaminents are always a possiblity, the fluid for e-cigarettes could be treated as a food product, with the same requirements for listing ingredients in the label. Any more would be paramount to a witch hunt.
Another fear among non-smokers is the promotion of flavors that might appeal to children. This is akin to fruit flavored alcohol. I believe firmly that this product should not be available to children, and sales should be limited to adults only.
Taxation & Cost. First, the public justification of punitive taxation on cigarettes has always been for the health of the public, and the inferred cost of treating smoking related illnesses. If ecigs are successful, there will be a significant drop in
tobacco related tax revenues, and medical costs. However, this is supposed to be a good thing, and the punitive tax by definition will be succeeding. Also, levying tobacco like taxes on ecigs is counter productive to the cause of having people quit smoking. Many people are looking to ecigs, not only for health, but because they cannot afford traditional cigarettes. Also, the market is made of primarily many many small US businesses. This creates competition and innovation not seen since the technology boom of the 90's. Regulation and taxation in this industry will effectively kill this dynamic industry, reducing it to a handful of large corporations with an oligopoly. Ideally, for the sake of public health, I believe ecigs should be subsidized.
In reality, the FDA should define the fluid as a food product (for sale to adults), and regulate accordingly. I believe that is sufficient regulation to promote the health of the public. The device itself should merely be defined as an electronic device, and again, regulated accordingly.
The subsidy I mention above should not be given to any company, but rather to fund independent research to investigate the health effects of ecig use versus smoking, and second hand smoke versus second hand vapor. The results would undoubtably further encourage the public to quit smoking.
I have always been sensitive to non-smokers around me. I have found that ecigs do not leave an odor, and there are no harmful ingredients to harm myself or others around me. The only negative reactions have been from total ignorance, from people who become verbally abusive at the sight of what appears to be cigarette smoke.
The bottom line is that the ecig is a more effective sessation device than all of the "approved" methods marketed by the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry combined. In addition, it is far healthier than most of the methods that have been approved without the serious side effects. I have experienced it personally. Given proper independent research, the evidence will be clear to all.
Sincerely,
A very concerned former smoker.