Wikipedia article needs editing

[Jerk]

Specifically on the cigarette page ( Cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) where it references e cigerettes as being 'novelty devices of unknown safety' along with the very brief description. I would edit it however I am not very good with words .

 

[Valsacar]

Fixed, thank you CASAA for the references!

 

[John Phoenix]

It's fixed? It reads as:

" Electronic cigarettes
Main article: Electronic cigarette

Electronic cigarettes are nicotine delivery devices that closely resemble cigarettes but produce no smoke. The health effects of electronic cigarettes have been, and continue to be, heavily studied[79][80][81]. These devices are illegal in some countries, such as Singapore. In other countries, these devices require government approval before these products can be sold, such as Canada and Denmark. "

They are Not classed as nicotine delivery devices but as tobacco products by the FDA anyway... Since Wikipedia is international.. ( or is it?) what do most other countries concider them as? For 79,80 and 81, someone could go ahead and give references.

 

[Valsacar]

They are nicotine delivery devices, as are cigarettes, pipes, the patch, the gum, etc. They are a method of delivering nicotine into the body. It was by classifying cigarettes/chew/etc as nicotine delivery devices that the FDA was able to gain control over the tobacco business. (Tobacco Advertising; Children and Tobacco; Executive Summary)

What you are thinking of is medical device (which is what the FDA was trying to classify them as).

79, 80, and 81 are all links to references at the bottom of the page. All three go to different lists of studies and resources on CASAA's page.

 

[rook2pawn]

They are nicotine delivery devices, as are cigarettes, pipes, the patch, the gum, etc. They are a method of delivering nicotine into the body. It was by classifying cigarettes/chew/etc as nicotine delivery devices that the FDA was able to gain control over the tobacco business. (Tobacco Advertising; Children and Tobacco; Executive Summary)

What you are thinking of is medical device (which is what the FDA was trying to classify them as).

79, 80, and 81 are all links to references at the bottom of the page. All three go to different lists of studies and resources on CASAA's page.

I think it is very important that there are other references as well outside of groups like CASAA which are not "neutral" sources of information (perhaps im incorrect here??)

We all know that by and large, e-cigarettes are so much safer than analogs, and the things that aren't safe (Like the butter flavors, we police away and self-police ourselves and our vendors, and inform the readers),

but it would be especially nice if we could start getting third and fourth perspectives, i.e. scientific groups/magazines/e-zines/columns who aren't contacted or approached by CASAA or anyone who is "Vape Community". Then that creates overwhelming evidence because the most "believable" evidence and sources are third party unasked sources that are known and respected to some degree in the field of science or human biology.

 

[Valsacar]

Did you actually LOOK at the references? They are lists of links to articles and studies by "scientific groups/magazines/e-zines/columns who aren't contacted or approached by CASAA."

There was no need to link to every single one of them since CASAA had already done that.