Electronic Cigarettes: Still Blowing Smoke
People often ask me about electronic cigarettes. Are they truly safer than regular cigarettes? It’s kind of like asking if television is safe. It depends what you watch on it.
Electronic cigarettes are a relatively recent development, having been invented in China in 2004. Instead of burning tobacco to produce inhalable smoke, e-cigs deliver a prepared solution which is heated by a battery-powered element in order to vaporize it. You then inhale this vapor. Nothing comes out of the device when you’re not sucking on it, and so it does not produce secondhand smoke and should not disturb other people.
You need to refill an e-cig with the liquid solution, and therein lies the rub. E-cigs are as safe as whatever you fill them with. Typical solutions consist of nicotine dissolved in glycerin with some flavor ingredients; and depending upon the nicotine concentration, you’re getting just as much as you would from a regular cigarette, or more or less, as you prefer. Since they are (usually) nicotine products, the addiction issues remain. But what about the health? Can you still get lung cancer from e-cigs?
It depends on whom you ask. The United States Food & Drug Administration does not take a terribly favorable view of them. Although no e-cig products have been submitted to them for evaluation, the FDA did do a small analysis on their own. Some of their results are:
DPA’s (FDA’s Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis) analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
DPA’s testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
The electronic cigarette cartridges that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all cartridges tested, except one.
Three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label were tested and each cartridge emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. The nicotine levels per puff ranged from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 mL puff.
One high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice as much nicotine to users when the vapor from that electronic cigarette brand was inhaled than was delivered by a sample of the nicotine inhalation product (used as a control) approved by FDA for use as a smoking cessation aid.
In part based on these results, the FDA has said only that they are “about potential health risks associated with electronic cigarettes.”
Canada has come straight out with a pretty hard-nosed response:
Health Canada is advising Canadians not to purchase or use electronic smoking products, as these products may pose health risks and have not been fully evaluated for safety, quality and efficacy by Health Canada… The sale of these health products is currently not compliant with the Food and Drugs Act since no electronic smoking products have been granted a market authorization in Canada.
Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance, and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant. Although these electronic smoking products may be marketed as a safer alternative to conventional tobacco products and, in some cases, as an aid to quitting smoking, electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction.
The World Health Organization has concentrated on advertising claims that e-cigs can be used effectively to stop smoking. They think not:
Contrary to what some marketers of the electronic cigarette imply in their advertisements, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not consider it to be a legitimate therapy for smokers trying to quit.
WHO does not discount the possibility that the electronic cigarette could be useful as a smoking cessation aid. The only way to know is to test.
“If the marketers of the electronic cigarette want to help smokers quit, then they need to conduct clinical studies and toxicity analyses and operate within the proper regulatory framework,” said Douglas Bettcher, Director a.i. of WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative. “Until they do that, WHO cannot consider the electronic cigarette to be an appropriate nicotine replacement therapy, and it certainly cannot accept false suggestions that it has approved and endorsed the product. “
So I think that, from the perspective of the Official Word, it can be fairly said that the jury is still out. It seems probable that e-cigs (when filled with most common solutions) are no worse than cigarettes, but there does not appear to be much reason to think they’re significantly safer for the user, despite such claims from virtually all sellers of the devices. From the perspective of the innocent bystander, I find them far preferable; but that’s another topic.
Glycerine aka glycerol is not the same thing as propylene glycol (the chemical mentioned by the Canucks) – so what is the carrier liquid?
At least there won’t be the stench of smoke – but I suffer nicotine poisoning even at fairly low doses; I can’t even sleep in a hotel room in which someone has been smoking or the nicotine in the sheets or in the carpet keeps me awake all night.
The spam filter here seems to be a bit restrictive towards product discussed here, and so sent my observation to /dev/null.
I’ll try to rephrase it, so it doesn’t ‘look spammy’.
I noticed among my friends, who experiment with the product discussed, that once they run out of cartridges bundled with the product, they buy refill kits and use much more substance than advised on a label, thus giving themselves even more nicotine than with tobacco based product.
As a non-smoker, I don’t really care, as long as it doesn’t stink.
Hehe, did you initially say “purchase” instead of “buy”?
The most common carrier fluid is propylene glycol, which is an additive in many foods and generally safe to ingest. The nicotine itself is the toxin, and when absorbed through the lung-blood barrier increases the risk of developing cancerous tissue.
I tend to believe that smoking addiction is purely psychological. Withdrawal pangs from nicotine are so mild that you barely notice them. I’ve smoked for 17 years, and I’ve not once woken up in the middle of the night in need of a cigarette, yet if I go without one for more than an hour during the day, I start getting edgy.
I would say that the best way to use e-cigs for smoking cessation would be to use the nicotine-free variety of fluid (aka e-juice). Although we are still lacking in studies of propylene glycol inhalation, it is likely much safer without the nicotine. Plus, if you make your own solution then you can flavor it as you see fit, just be careful what you use, because it IS going into your lungs.
“I’ve smoked for 17 years, and I’ve not once woken up in the middle of the night in need of a cigarette, yet if I go without one for more than an hour during the day, I start getting edgy”
Maybe when you’re asleep the part of your brain that craves a cigarette is not as active? Or other parts of your brain that are activated during sleep are suppressing those cravings?
Well, that is essentially what I’m saying. When you sleep, your consciousness becomes dormant. That draws a strong correllation between cigarette cravings and conscious thought, which leads me to believe that it is a psychological issue.
Then there is the fact that most quitters relapse days, weeks, months or years after they stop, long after the nicotine has been purged from their body. Even when substitutes like gum or patches are used, it still doesn’t quite scratch that itch for a cigarette, despite the nicotine content.
I think there likely is at least a small amount of physical addiction to cigarettes, but the psychological addiction is much stronger. I have quit smoking several times for months, or even more than a year at one point and have never “woken up in the middle of the night in need of a cigarette,” but I have certainly woken up in the middle of dreaming I was smoking and been glad I hadn’t yet relapsed.
The most difficult part of quitting smoking for me is that if I have the slightest urge to smoke, I’m never more than 5 minutes from a gas station willing to feed my addiction. I imagine if I was a heroin junky or something that it would be much harder to get my fix during a small relapse.
So you are a long-time smoker. I knew it.
Smoking is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, where the irrational desire to smoke clashes with the fact that it’s harmful to your health.
So you end up rationalizing it and playing semantic games that enable you to say “First hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer” with a straight face.
And you are a classic case of condescending non-smokers rationalizing ill-conceived dangers of ETS so they can increase smoking bans and make the world a better place.. for them.
I have no desire to smoke, in fact quite the opposite, but it is a deep-rooted addiction, one that any smoker who has ever tried to quit will tell you, its freakin hard. I am wholeheartedly in agreement that smoking is bad for your health, but I take issue with people inflating the danger to non-smokers, pushing the government to shit all over our liberties because you don’t like how it smells.
Please, quit crying “semantics” at every argument I make, it doesn’t make yours any more convincing. It is FACT that tobacco smoke is not directly causal to cancer, it is causal to an increased risk of cancer. There is a difference, and it isn’t semantic. The number of cancer cases are a minority of the smoker demographic, the vast majority die of other causes attributable to a generally unhealthy lifestyle. You don’t have to be a statistician to know that many people who smoke also engage in other bad habits.
If smoking were causal to cancer, then anyone who ever smoked would have it, yet some people smoke for most of their lives and still live to a ripe old age. In that light, tobacco wouldn’t even be legal and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Do car accidents have direct non-mechanical causes? Give me two examples.
How about talking on cell phones and receiving oral sex while driving? I am engaged in both on a regular basis, and I’ve never been in an accident.
Sure, or how about driving drunk and running red lights? Some people do both, and have never been in an accident.
You can call it an indirect cause if it helps you sleep at night, but it’s still a cause.
I figured that someone who says, “First hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer” is either a smoker or a pedantic linguist, and I didn’t take you for a linguist, and I was right.
Well, you’ve certainly shown your true colors (those being black and white), if not made an argument that is worth a shit. I’m growing tired of your passing judgement, non sequitur and flimsy analogies. If you can’t stay objective and mature in a discussion, then take a hike.
Whatever I did to offend you, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass. Your indirect ad hominem is not welcome here.
If it’s of any interest, at 80 years old, and smoking more-or-less (about 4 cigs a day) and off-and-on since I was 16, I can easily agree with you that not everyone gets cancer et al. I can also, obviously, agree that it is harmful to some.
What I’m not sure of, is that it’s the nicotine one necessarily likes… rather than enjoying the taste of the tobacco…and that it’s necessarily addictive, and necessarily the (only?) cancer-causer from smoking. What about all of those additives in cigs?
But I don’t know of anyone who LIKES (not HAS TO) to smoke tobaccco who will trade it for the e-cigs. Seems rather bizarre. Maybe one has to be an addict who has to puff all day long to consider it. And I’ve not seen data that says lung cancer is thereby reduced…
I have a theory on that involving subconscious suggestion. When a person lights up their very first cigarette ever, they are initially disgusted. This plants the suggestion that we don’t like it, and that we could never possibly get addicted to something so nasty, so smoking the next one is not perceived as a health threat the way that it should.
Most smokers start out smoking at large intervals, perhaps one per week or longer. Over time, they gradually smoke more and more often as that suggestion gets reinforced with each cig. Combined with external suggestions made vocal by other smokers, like “I’m so stressed, I need a cigarette”, leads to other skewed notions that we are not aware we are learning. Now we have feedback, where multiple false notions are reinforcing each other, and the habit snowballs out of control.
When we reach the point that we light up to combat stress, it then becomes an emotional attachment, making it even harder to break. I have observed that emotions tend to enhance the recording of sensory data into memory (we seem to remember things better when that event invoked an emotional response).
To illustrate, when I was 4 years old, my family bought a pet rabbit, one of those fluffy white ones with evil red eyes. I was in love with it, until it bit my toe and made me bleed. Then it scared the crap out of me and all I saw were angry red satan eyes beaming messages of death at me. To this day, I still remember the rabbit and I still involuntarily twitch when I see one, although I have few memories of anything else from that period in my life.
With that concept in mind, I think smoking as stress relief becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That subconscious nag for a cigarette causes us stress, to which the only cure is a cigarette.
I think the key to quitting is to brainwash ourselves into believing the opposite. Through repetition of suggestion, convincing ourselves that cigarettes CAUSE stress instead of relieve it may break the cycle and perhaps even start a reverse chain reaction.
Robo-“I think the key to quitting is to brainwash ourselves into believing the opposite. Through repetition of suggestion, convincing ourselves that cigarettes CAUSE stress instead of relieve it may break the cycle and perhaps even start a reverse chain reaction.”
Since it appears that you already believe that smoking is also the cause of stress, then brainwashing should not be necessary, but just honest acceptance of what you already believe to be true.
According to a study in rats, MAO inhibitors in tobacco smoke may make it more addictive than nicotine alone.
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n8/abs/1300987a.html
My rule of thumb is that any burnt stuff and chemical irritants have potential to cause cancer. Tobacco smoke contains carcinogens, well-done red meat contains carcinogens, alcohol and even very hot water can cause esophageal cancer, sunburn leads to skin cancer, etc.
tmac- I agree, but by “brainwashing” I mean overriding subconscious memory. While I am consciously aware that cigarettes cause the same stress that they cure, my subconscious believes otherwise. That was the point of my bunny example, to liken it to an involuntary reflex. As a full grown man, I know darn well that rabbits are harmless, yet if I pet one I will still jerk back if it makes a sudden move. It is hysterical, really. I’m a large man with 4 years of club security on my resume, and I’m afraid of bunnies.
Regarding dangerous rabbits: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes?qt0470631
I love me some Monty Python!
We need a few decades and a very large number of ecig users before we can establish any figures on ecigs and lung cancer, so attempting to scare people into not using it doesn’t help establish any facts.
I live in a town full of condescending non-smokers. In May they’re trying to make open, public areas in the “downtown” section “smoke-free” zones where outside smokers can be fined. I expect use of e-cigs is going to go through the roof, regardless of any health risks. I myself cannot smoke and am very allergic to cigarette smoke, but really…regulating smoking outside? This is pretty ridiculous.
I agree, that is nonsensical to the extreme. I can understand indoor bans, as it does linger in the air, but outdoors is fair game.
Regardless of indoor/outdoor distinctions, smoking restrictions should be exclusively decided by property owners. Any state or local government is overstepping its bounds by regulating, seeing as how federal court dismissed the EPA’s cherrypicked study on ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke).
Speaking of cherrypicking, do you think the EPA did the only study on ETS?
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf
Three population-based (Brownson et al. 1992, Stockwell et al. 1992, Fontham et al. 1994) and one hospital-based (Kabat et al. 1995) case-control studies addressed potential systematic biases. Each of the three population-based studies showed an increased risk from prolonged environmental tobacco smoke exposure of a magnitude consistent with prior estimates. The hospital-based study gave similarly increased risk estimates, but the results were not statistically significant. The potential for publication bias has been examined and dismissed (CEPA 1997), and the reported absence of increased risk for lung cancer for nonsmokers exposed only in occupational settings has been found not to be the case when the analysis is restricted to higher quality studies (Wells 1998). Thus, factors related to chance, bias, and/or confounding have been adequately excluded, and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is established as causally related to human lung cancer.
While we’re talking about indoor smoking, what about multi-unit housing? Speaking from personal experience, I’ve lived in three apartment buildings now where smoke comes through the heating vents from other apartments. My current flat will quite literally have a haze in the living room most evenings.
As for the banning of smoking outside, I’d be all for it – or at least for enforcing the 9meters bylaw we already have. I’ve frequently had to get up and walk quite far away from bus stops because a smoker has sat next to me and lit up. Not to mention having to get somewhere with half my fellow pedestrians being smokers. If smokers aren’t going to be conscientious and respectful of other people, why not legislate?
It does somewhat defeat the purpose of getting out for some fresh air if the air is worse than at home.
Government is bloated and wasteful. More legislation won’t solve anything, and the constitution does not protect your right to not be offended. I make it a point not to blow my smoke in the faces of others, and I’d expect any courteous person to do the same. Next time someone lights up next to you like that, tell him he’s being a douchebag and he ought to relocate. You may end up in a fist fight, but at least you’ll still have your liberty.
If smoking were causal to cancer, then anyone who ever smoked would have it, yet some people smoke for most of their lives and still live to a ripe old age
This is a complete misunderstanding of the medical science involved. It’s not black or white where smoking either always causes cancer or never does. Rather, smoking greatly increases the risk — e.g. percentage chance — that you will develop cancer.
Thus, some people will get lucky and smoke their whole life without getting cancer while some will be unlucky and die young. Point is that smoking is proven to greatly increase your odds of some types of cancer.
As a result I think smoking bans, et al are entirely reasonable. We don’t otherwise allow people to spue asbestos into the air, for instance, for others to breathe. Same difference with tobacco smoke — why should innocent bystanders have to face an increased risk of cancer (even if that increase is minimal) so that a smoker can smoke wherever he or she wants?
If a smoker wants to run the high risk of an early death then go right ahead. Just don’t let him try to take the rest of us with him!
Did you read my entire comment, or just skim to the last bit? I was making the distinction between risk and causation, and you just reiterated exactly what I said, but in different terms.
The cancer risk of ETS is grossly misrepresented when stated as a percentage. As I said earlier, the difference in increased risk between passive smokers is 12.5:1M vs 10:1M, respectively, which was quoted by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute as being “statistically insignificant”.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/19/1440.pdf
In university in a course on human physiology, nicotine addiction was one of the subjects we covered. Nicotine actually fixates itself between the nerve cells of the nervous system, so when you start going through withdrawl and the nicotine is released from between the cells, you get a disruption in the electric pulses travelling through the nerves. Now, of course they do heal and contact each other again, but it takes a few weeks or so to do. So the withdrawl symptoms for the first few weeks are certainly, at least in part, symptoms of physical withdrawl.
However at the same time, the part that most smokers have the hardest time breaking is the behavioural habits that accommodate smoking. Breaking any behavioural habits, or starting new ones, are very hard no matter what it is. Smoking is no exception. Thankfully for smokers, there are inhaler-type products that are nicotine free (many have some menthol for minty flavour) to help replace the cigarette behaviour with something else. I’ve also noticed that Nicorette now sells nicotine inhalers as a smoking cessation product, again to compensate for the behavioural aspect.
Combined, it makes for a very powerful addiction to break. I am fortunate enough to have never become addicted, but I certainly empathise with smokers who hare a rough time quitting, though I support then if they choose to make the attempt. Before my human physiology course I was more critical of smokers, but now that I understand it better I can empathise. I still don’t like it, but it’s unfair to judge a person because of it.
Thank you for that. I’ve grown sick and tired of non-smokers looking down their noses at us like we are idiots or nasty, inferior people because we made a mistake in our youth. Despite their ridiculous comments, smoking addiction is a hell that I wouldn’t wish upon anyone, even them. I might wish it upon Ben Stein though.
Withdrawal pangs from nicotine are so mild that you barely notice them.
ya think? is that why so many people can’t quit easily? they’re all psychosomatic morons?
actually, i kind of agree with you. (that it is mostly psychological.) but what i can’t understand is why very intelligent people who recognize all of this, understand the dangers, and supposedly really want to stop smoking just can’t do so.
i quit cold turkey more than 10 years ago. i guess i’m not as much of a moron as i thought i was.
oh yeah, as an ex-smoker who abhors the stench of cigarette smoke – i’m all for e-cigs for those of you who can’t manage to NOT be morons.
Perhaps you should seek a more rational explanation of why you found it easier to quit, rather than dismiss everyone else as morons. That would be far less moronic than what you just said.
I don’t think that nicotine itself is classified as a carcinogen. If e-cigs have only a fraction of the carcinogens in cigarettes, then I’d expect that they’re less likely to cause cancer.
That is correct, it is not classified as a carcinogen, but it is known to impede apoptosis, one of the body’s functions for destroying damaged cells. However, there are a large amount of carcinogenic compounds in tobacco smoke that can exacerbate cancerous tissue, which combined with the defense-inhibiting properties of nicotine can lead to increased risk.
Really, the jury isn’t “still out” about the relative safety of electronic cigarettes.
The FDA’s preliminary report last year found *trace* amounts of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). To put this in perspective, here are the comparative levels (in nanograms):
Electronic cigarette: 8
Nicotine patch: 8
Marlboro cigarette: 11,290
(http://www.healthnz.co.nz/EcigNitrosamines.htm)
The first rule of toxicology: The poison is in the dose.
As for nicotine, it carries about the same health risks as another widely used, addictive substance: caffeine. (See page two: http://www.psa.org.au/site.php?id=1458)
The American Association of Public Health Physicians estimates the risk of electronic cigarettes to be “much less than 1%” of the risks associated with traditional cigarettes. (aaphp.org)
The substance that creates the vapor produced by puffing on an electronic cigarette is most often propylene glycol. It’s recognized as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) by the FDA. You’ll find it in a wide range of commonly used products, including air fresheners, asthma inhalers, and Baby Orijel.
The question really shouldn’t be whether or not e-cigarettes are safe in any sort of absolute sense. Nothing is 100% safe, including water. The question is, Are they safER than smoking? The answer to that is a definitive yes, they most certainly are–and not just a little safer, but as much 99.9% safer.
What you need to keep in mind is that people who use electronic cigarettes aren’t choosing between electronic cigarettes and fresh mountain air. They’re choosing between electronic cigarettes and *cigarettes*–the kind that unquestionably kill people.
Great comment, and thanks for the links.
“What you need to keep in mind is that people who use electronic cigarettes aren’t choosing between electronic cigarettes and fresh mountain air. They’re choosing between electronic cigarettes and *cigarettes*–the kind that unquestionably kill people.”
Some nonsmokers may choose to start smoking e-cigs, thinking they’re completely safe or even nicotine-free because the label says so. Some smokers may be choosing between FDA approved nicotine patches and e-cigs to help quit smoking. Some smokers may be choosing between quitting and switching to e-cigs.
Max: Yes, it’s certainly possible that nonsmokers might try electronic cigarettes, just as it’s possible that nonsmokers might try traditional cigarettes … or that nondrinkers might try a glass of wine … and so on. As long as they’re of legal age to do so–and as long as they’ve been truthfully informed of the risks involved–that’s up to them, isn’t it?
The issue is whether “they’ve been truthfully informed of the risks involved.” Cigarettes carry the surgeon general’s warning but e-cigs don’t, and the FDA says their labels lie.
Or if you treat e-cigs as a smoking cessation aid, they aren’t required to list the side effects, unlike FDA approved drugs.
I can find reliable information about the side effects of nicotine gum, but not of e-cigs.
http://www.medicinenet.com/nicotine_gum/article.htm
The smoking cessation thing is tricky, Max. FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies are meant to treat nicotine addiction by tapering the dose and then altogether quitting nicotine.
That’s not really the intended use of e-cigarettes (although some people have used them this way–and if you’re using an e-cigarette instead of a cigarette, you’re obviously not smoking). But e-cigarettes aren’t “treating” anything. They’re a cleaner way of continuing to use nicotine and they address the hand-to-mouth, inhale/exhale behaviors that so appeals to smokers. But I guarantee that the e-cigarette companies don’t want us to stop using e-cigarettes. Their intended use is identical to traditional cigarettes.
The FDA’s insistence that e-cigs be regulated as a “new drug/delivery device” is keeping all of this in limbo as it plays out in federal court. The FDA lost the first round–and not just a little; they lost BIG.
The district court judge ruled–in a harshly worded, 32-page opinion in January–that the FDA does not have jurisdiction to regulate e-cigarettes as a drug, though they do have jurisdiction to regulate them as a tobacco product–and as a “modified risk” tobacco product, at that.
If the FDA did that, e-cigarettes would be regulated, labeled, legally forbidden to minors, etc. But the FDA maintains that e-cigarettes are a “new drug/delivery device” and are appealing the decision.
Josh Sharfstein, the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, is for all intents and purposes a nicotine prohibitionist. He just can’t stand it that anybody is addicted to nicotine, even if that addiction isn’t causing them any problems (much less causing anyone else problems).
Therein lies the controversy. Some anti-smoking groups and tobacco control policy people believe that, if smokers can’t or won’t quit, they should at least be informed that there are ways of minimizing their risks while continuing to use nicotine.
Others take the stance that smokers should quit, period. Quit, or die. It’s really rather ludicrous, and it’s resulting in a lot of … death.
I don’t understand how a vapor inhalator can be construed as a “tobacco product” — it is a nicotine delivery device, there is no tobacco in it. Nicotine is a drug just the same as caffeine, regardless of the source it is extracted from. It is like classifying all products containing caffeine as “coffee products.”
If Mr. Sharfstein were pushing some anti-nicotine agenda, then why are so many nicotine supplements like gum and patches readily available at Walmart? On the other hand, classifying as a tobacco product makes them subject to the same unscrupulous taxation that we now have on tobacco, which is rather convenient for the Fed.
As it stands, e-cigarettes have to fall into one of two categories: drug/delivery device or tobacco product. There’s no third option. A lot of people think there should be, but as it stands now, there’s not.
The two companies who sued the FDA last year for holding up shipments made a very good case for why e-cigarettes are a tobacco product, and District Court Judge Richard Leon agreed that the FDA has no authority to regulate e-cigarettes as a drug/delivery device. A lot of that has to do with intended use (i.e., e-cigarettes are used, for all intents and purposes, just as a cigarette is used–for the recreational use of nicotine), and with the fact that nicotine is derived from the tobacco plant.
Here’s the opinion, if you want to read it: http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
The WHO and other research organizations are doing a little hip-firing on this. Considering the huge laundry list of chemicals and pesticides that are in tobacco that aren’t in the liquid solutions for e-cigs, I don’t see how rationally they can tell the public that they are “just as bad”.
As a previous poster stated, nictoine itself is NOT a carcinogen, so to make blanket statements such as the warnings that these people are spouting.. is foolhardy, dangerous and simply obtuse.
They don’t know that they cause cancer, or increase the risk of cancer, any cancer, or any health problem for that matter. Until the studies have been done then they cannot assume that they DO cause cancer. Somewhere along the lines they stopped being scientists and became activists. If they make the claim that these new products have carcinogenic effects then they need to pony up and PROVE IT. It is not up to the e-cig people to prove that they DON’T.
Nicotine delivery does not equate to cancer, because nicotine is not a carcinogen. Period.
Candy cigs don’t cause cancer either… Or Do they? Maybe the candy manufacturer should prove to the WHO that they don’t, before they sell any more. Idiots. And to the guy who posted that he can’t sleep in a hotel bed where a smoker has slept.. Dude you are a pussy.
ROFL, agreed on all points, except for one. E-cig makers are making the claim that it is perfectly safe, therefore the burden of proof is on them, not the FDA or WHO. I’m not a huge fan of either organization’s policies, but I understand their stance from a political perspective. Even though we are 99.9% sure that e-cigs are 99.9% safe, that is still too big of a margin for them to gamble on without a beurocratic paper trail that leads blame-chasers elsewhere.
Robo, I thought that you objected to ad hominems. Does that objection only count unless you agree with them?
Didn’t you know? I’m the founding father of the hypocriticism movement.
Of course that comment was uncalled for, but I mistakenly thought he was talking to Max. The way he behaves, he kinda had it coming, so I’m not above chuckling at a little slander here and there. Apologies to MadScientist.
You and Max both need to chill out, you take this stuff way too personally and get all heated because you don’t like my views. Well tough shit, this is a discussion board, try having a discussion without getting your panties in a wad. It is most liberating. You both react quite poorly to anyone arguing against anything you say, and litter your comments with venomous disdain just because people don’t agree with you or accept what you say as fact without questioning it. I harbor no ill feelings and am willing to bury the hatchet, provided you can demonstrate a little maturity and civility.
Well, I won’t respond in kind, but I think that you have unfairly characterized my participation on this blog. But, I too can move on. FWIW, I don’t have any problem with being challenged, and I have no illusion that everything that I say is fact. Actually, I expect to be argued with, its a good way to check your own ideas, and thats how we learn. I do expect others to keep it civil, but I can deal with odd attack now and again.
You’re a fuckwit Code Monk. you’re saying I’m a pussy because I get poisoned and can’t sleep? Haul your ass over here and I’ll give it a good whooping.
The really harmful thing about smoking is the smoke. Delivery of nicotine without that is simply nowhere near as hazardous.
So, for some people the choice is to smoke and get nicotine efficiently with all the hazards or use a different delivery method that’s not as efficient but can be as satisfying.
Nicotine itself is similar in action to caffeine.
Skoal and snuff also result in higher incidences of cancer, so it’s not just the smoke – it must be something else (or a number of other things) in tobacco. No one seems to be suggesting that it is the nicotine itself though – and if it were I’d expect that we would already have heard reports of nicotine patches causing dermal cancers.
Tobacco contains chemical compounds that serve as a defense against herbivores, many of those compounds are carcinogenic. Nicotine is not one of them, but it is known to inhibit apoptosis in an otherwise healthy cell, making it much easier for the carcinogens to mutate the DNA contained within. Without its self-destruct mechanism, the mutated (cancerous) cell is then free to replicate.
Never heard of this before, but very interested. Why would these organizations discourage the use of something that appears to be no worse for the user than current products, but is safer for bystanders? I’d give just about anything to be able to enter/exit a building or wait for a bus or walk down a sidewalk without having a coughing fit!
They discourage it because there are too many unknowns. At face value, it seems like a superior option for everyone.. until the users start developing testicle mustaches, then everyone will cry to Daddy Government to fix it.
It all comes down to being better safe than sorry. The FDA, having too little data to properly regulate, is being pressed for answers that they don’t yet have, so really the only option is to say nay until more is known, that way they can maintain deniability if e-cigs somehow do turn out to be worse than tobacco. On the other hand, if they said it was ok and it turned out not to be, there would be public outrage and loss of trust.
It comes down to public servants covering their asses. I don’t believe they should discourage the ecigs; they should simply state that many of the claims are not demonstrated and that they haven’t tested them. I for one would encourage current smokers to use them so that we could get reliable information on how they compare with traditional cigarettes. Otherwise you end up with this stupid situation of “we don’t know much and we don’t want to know – just ban ‘em!” One useful thing that the regulators can do is prescribe parameters for the dosing and the consistency of batches and unless the manufacturers meet the requirements their products will not be legal for sale. Such regulations should have some period before enforcement though; you don’t want to clamp down on the sales immediately unless you have evidence of these products killing people.
That is the problem though, they do not have enough data yet to establish such parameters, so the only responsible thing to do is advise people to avoid them. It would be unfathomably wrong for the FDA to say “We’re not really sure about e-cigarettes, but go ahead and use them. We think you’ll be fine.”
The potential for e-cigs is awesome. What we have on the market currently are experimental designs and liquid solutions that were cobbled together into a sellable package, but the claims made give a lot of people hope for a healthier (or I should say, less deadly) alternative. It will be a fringe market until a reasonable body of evidence emerges, but if a satisfactory amount of controlled studies conclude positively about the safety and efficacy of e-cigs, larger monetary interests will enter the scene and we will see better, safer, cheaper products.
That is, until some assholes decide to over-tax it the way they did with tobacco. Marlboros are $7 a pack in Florida, near double the previous price before the new tax.
Sounds like a disruptive innovation.
And you sound like a communist that thinks anything that infringes on liberty is totally brilliant as long as it helps shape the world as you see fit.
And I’m the one who needs to chill out…
I think you misinterpret that as a statement of passion, it is not. You assert that unjust taxes on things that you don’t like are perfectly acceptable “innovations” for improving society, so I called you out.
Tobacco is harmful and stinky, but people have a right to do as they see fit with their own bodies. Levying an extra tax on cigarettes as a means of discouragement is an abuse of governmental power of taxation.
No, you misinterpreted what I said. The e-cig is the disruptive innovation because it disrupts the tobacco market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
I stand corrected, then. In my own defense, you weren’t entirely clear on that one, and given the previous course of this discussion, its an easy mistake to make.
I could’ve been more clear, but you could’ve asked me to clarify before insulting me.
So it appears we do have something in common; we’re both assholes.
The doses only need to be set at a maximum similar to that of puffing a traditional cigarette.
I would at least expect these gizmos to help reduce the development of emphysema (unless the antifreeze used as a carrier causes irritation of the lung tissue – better try the glycerine based ones). Years ago some colleagues were doing breath tests in the laboratory for other reasons and (re)discovered accidentally that smokers can have incredible amounts of carbon monoxide in their blood quite a few hours after claiming to have had their last cigarette. One person was exhaling carbon monoxide in excess of the EPA’s recommended 8 hour exposure limit; how much of the stuff was clinging onto her hemoglobin and keeping oxygen out is anyone’s guess.
I think you are confusing propylene glyciol with diethylene glycol, which is used in antifreeze. No brand of “e-juice” is made with antifreeze or its components.
Robo Sapien: propylene glycol is also used as antifreeze; as I pointed out, there are numerous antifreezes.
You’re right, let me restate that:
Propylene glycol is used in some types of non-toxic antifreeze.
I hope the FDA is making sure that Chinese manufacturers didn’t substitute antifreeze for the glycerin, as they did in cheap toothpaste and other products that killed people.
It depends on the antifreeze; ethylene glycol (my preferred one) is fairly toxic. Propylene glycol has a much lower toxicity. There are perhaps a dozen or so other antifreeze formulations.
A lot of people are trying to keep the idea alive that electronic cigarettes are bad for you. But the truth of the matter is, that so many former smokers are able to move away from the enslavement of tobacco cigarettes, that the facts are starting to speak for themselves. The electronic cigarette is giving many smokers the ability to overcome their addiction to these cancer causing tobacco implements, by giving the “smoker” a hit of nicotine vapor, and without the toxic agents that are known as carcinogens.
You can bet on a huge campaign against it by Reynolds and the BAT. Unless of course they develop their own version – which they are probably doing. However, they have to get around any patents the Chinese may have filed in the USA. In other levels of government I expect pressure may evolve for the regulators to nix it – the government is addicted to that tobacco tax.
“The electronic cigarette is giving many smokers the ability to overcome their addiction to these cancer causing tobacco implements, by giving the ‘smoker’ a hit of nicotine vapor, and without the toxic agents that are known as carcinogens.”
Do you need the diclaimer? The above statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Electronic cigarettes are not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease.
In fact, your statement contradicts the FDA’s findings that e-cigs do contain carcinogens.
Antifreeze is a hot item (pun intended) in the big e-cig debate, due to one of the federally funded studies showing trace amounts of diethylene glycol in one of the samples. Those trace amounts were residual leftover from the process that uses DEG to extract the “essence” of the tobacco, for use in the “normal” flavor of liquid, but opponents of e-cigs have omitted that part and made a lot of irrational implications, like claiming the manufacturers add antifreeze to improve the taste, or to save money.
A good deal of info here
http://depletedcranium.com/smoking-and-cancer-how-did-we-miss-that-one-or-did-we/#more-6317
The FDA is blowing smoke as far as I am concerned. Regular tobacco is not approved but people can buy cigarettes. The battle although has begun and it is proving well so far in the court and Green Smoke tells the FDA that they are standing their ground about the safe use of their e-cigarettes. I have been smoke free from tobacco for over 3 months thanks to the electronic cigarette. By the way Propylene Glycol is used in FDA approved fog machines for concerts and it is in many food like cake mix. It is obvious they are less dangerous than cigarettes if you spend ten minutes researching them. Cheers!
FDA regulates tobacco and controls nicotine levels, flavorings, product labels, warnings, advertising, etc.
Smoking cessation products like nicotine gum and patches are FDA approved.
The problem is that FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies have a dismal rate of success: about 7%.
E-cigarettes have been on the market since 2005. Millions of people in 50 different countries have used or are currently using them.
There hasn’t been a *single* reported serious adverse event. Compare that with Chantix, an FDA-approved “quit-smoking” drug. The FDA’s website for reporting adverse events has 2,483,089 Chantix entries as of 1/20/2010. (http://www.fdable.com/aers/advanced_query?encoded_value=a54ab42b6bee)
Jacob Sullum (Reason magazine) summed it up nicely, I think: “Telling smokers they may not use electronic 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.”
The 2,483,089 adverse events are for ALL drugs, not just Chantix.
“There hasn’t been a *single* reported serious adverse event.”
Where? In the FDA’s Drug Adverse Events Reporting System? Maybe because e-cigs are not FDA approved drugs.
“The problem is that FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapies have a dismal rate of success: about 7%.”
Firstly, isn’t that the placebo group’s success rate? Cochrane says NRT increases the rate by 50-70%.
Secondly, is there any good evidence that e-cigs are more effective?
For once, I agree with you 100%. E-cigs may be vastly safer than tobacco, but as of yet, there is no non-anecdotal evidence that they are effective as a smoking cessation aid.
Matter of fact, I got a different story from the owner of the tobacco store at the mall. I went there in search of an e-cig starter kit, and evidently he quit selling them because most of his customers brought it back seeking a refund after they relapsed within weeks.
Oops, sorry about that number for Chantix. I thought it seemed ridiculously high … but I was in a rush and didn’t look closely enough. It’s actually 10,102.
As for nothing but anecdotal evidence for e-cigs as a smoking cessation device, a peer-reviewed study was just published on April 8: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010%20Bullen%20ECig.pdf.
But please don’t be so quick to dismiss the anecdotal evidence–not when it’s as substantial as it is for e-cigarettes. The online forum membership for the two or three main forums is more than 40,000 people, and we have to figure that’s a small fraction of the number of people who use the product.
A lot depends on the quality of the product, too. As e-cigarettes have become so much more popular in the last year, there are more unscrupulous companies trying to make a quick buck with an inferior, overpriced product, which is really too bad, given the potential.
I won’t dispute the potential of e-cigs, but as of right now, potential is all that they have. To make a physics analogy, an object only has potential energy until it is put into motion.
I read the entire study, and while its conclusions are positive, I don’t feel the control parameters were good enough to realistically evaluate the efficacy of e-cigs. Although they readily admit that it is only a preliminary study, anyone who smokes will tell you that a 1hr test is laughable, and 40 subjects is nowhere near enough to reach a noteworthy conclusion. Furthermore, the “desire to smoke” factor, measurable only by questioning, seemed unnecessary and may have contaminated the results.
We need to see more studies with larger groups over a longer period of time, as much as a month in my opinion. Several co-workers of mine have tried them, and told me they were fine with it for the first few days or so, but soon went back to tobacco. I think the biggest hurdle is the devices themselves being cumbersome to use. Most people I know have a hard time keeping their cell phone charged, much less a smoking device. I just don’t see them being viable until they can be manufactured as disposables, but there are issues with that as well. Batteries contain hazardous material, and disposing of that many would be of some concern to the EPA, not to mention make them needlessly expensive. The only alternative would be some sort of piezo-electric powered gizmo that used smaller cartridges equal to one cigarette.
Still, I have hope for the future of e-cigs. Smoking addiction is a blight upon human health and the world is in desperate need of a better option.
What about an eJoint? Fill it with squirrel piss and woo hoo!
same with pot (aka weed). Is regulating cigs are bad, the same is for any other drug. War on drugs is just a big money waste machine. Or is it? Maybe for some people it is a big business machine.
Anyone, who is pro cigaretts but against pot (for example) is hypocrite. :)
Ok…Lets talk about Marijuana impacting a marriage. I have a problem where my husband and I have had numerous problems with marijuanna and betrayal all together. I cant trust him, he knows I cant, and doesnt do anything to change that. We used to smoke weed together. When I got pregnant with our first kid we said we would quit smoking. Since then I have been on and off cause I catch him doing it and he convinces me that i cant CHANGE him and that he wants to smoke. So after so much fighting… I end up doing it with him and his friends.
I have been over a month without a cigarette. I accomplished this through the use of an electronic cigarette. Over the last 17 years I have tried many times, using many different FDA approved methods such as Chantix and the patch, and was not able to quit smoking until now.
I can breath again as well as smell and taste food. I am no longer a burden to the non-smoking public and I am no longer paying unfair selective taxes to fund programs that are not related to smoke inhalation health treatment. I am free from the monkey on my back and I am happy. I currently use liquid that contains nicotine and enjoy it as much as I do my coffee, which surprisingly I drink less of since I quit smoking cigarettes.
Oh yeah, and I no longer reek like an ashtray. The statistics can leap from the nearest cliff for all I care and any non smokers that have a problem with that can follow. I have done enough for them with all the sin taxes that Ive payed over the years. A ban on electronic cigarettes would be a major boundary breach by the government as would taxing them.
Just my two cents. I apologize if my post was not as intelligent and as filled with statistical data as others, but I felt that an actual personal experience with the topic was needed. I very much enjoyed this thread.
Thanks everyone.