backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Feb 12 at 4:48 AM


Nurse Barbara Kilgalen, a participant in the Virginia Commonwealth University study, demonstrates e-cigarette use. The study indicates that electronic cigarettes epically fail at delivering nicotine to the body.  (Source: Paul Courson/CNN)
Despite popularity, the questions about e-cigarettes may not be all they are cracked up to be

Last year we wrote on the health risks associated with electronic cigarettes, commonly known as "e-cigarettes".  The devices have been billed as "healthy living" products and as a tool to help smokers quit their addiction.  Advocates say that since electronic cigarettes simply give smokers a vapor with nicotine and no burned chemicals, that they are relatively safe.

Those claims may be inaccurate, though.  Last March, the Food and Drug Administration banned imports of the devices, which are largely manufactured in China.  The FDA wants to investigate health concerns.  Namely, the FDA found that chemical formulas for the smoky vapor often contained dangerous components; at least one manufacturer used diethylene glycol as a key ingredient, a chemical commonly used in antifreeze and toxic to humans.

Now a new study adds to the doubts about e-cigarettes, indicating that they are about as successful at delivering nicotine as puffing on an unlit cigarette.  Dr. Thomas Eissenberg at the Virginia Commonwealth University led the study.  The study involved 16 participants and extensively monitored nicotine levels in the body and heart rates when using both traditional and electronic cigarettes.

The study, the first study of e-cigarettes to be conducted by U.S. doctors, found that almost no nicotine was actually delivered by the devices and instead users were actually inhaling a nicotine-devoid toxic vapor of compounds like diethylene glycol or nitrosamines, a family of cancer-causing nitrogen compounds.

Describes Dr. Eissenberg, "They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette.  These e-cigs do not deliver nicotine.  Ten puffs from either of these electronic cigarettes with a 16 mg nicotine cartridge delivered little to no nicotine."

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and will soon be published in the journal Tobacco Control, a product of the British Medical Journal Group.

Nicotine has some beneficial health effects, particularly for the mentally ill, so it is disappointing that e-cigarettes appear unable to deliver the compound.

Despite the mounting criticisms, many e-cigarette users stand by the product.  Jimi Jackson, a former tobacco smoker in Richmond, Virginia, who sells electronic cigarettes, comments, "I smoked 37 years, and when I found them, I was, like, 'Thank, you Jesus.'"

The FDA is currently being sued by a company called "Smoking Everywhere" that imports e-cigarettes from China.  The company wants the FDA to lift the ban on e-cigarette imports.  The company's court filings reveal just how popular the devices are -- the company sold 600,000 e-cigarettes in a year via the company's network of 120 distributors in the United States. 

Why should the FDA lift its ban?  According to Washington lawyer Kip Schwartz, representing "Smoking Everywhere", "We are on the verge of going out of business, which is why we are suing the FDA in U.S. District Court."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

More scare tactics?
By frobizzle on 2/10/2010 12:15:39 PM , Rating: 5
I wonder about the validity of all this. A study done at a Virginia college, a state that relies heavily on income from tobacco production. And the FDA? How much tax money would be lost if most or all smokers switched to these electronic cigarettes? I am skeptical of their motives.




RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/10/2010 12:25:30 PM , Rating: 5
Pure BS from my standpoint. I use e-cigs and I can personally tell the difference between 24mg cartos and 18mg cartos. I've been smoke free for three weeks and my lungs are clear, my skin has returned to a more natural color and my energy levels are back to normal. I have nothing but positive things to say about e-cigs and as a nicotine replacement therapy, it's been the easiest transition from real smokes I've ever had.

If I vape too much, I get an nicotine overload.


RE: More scare tactics?
By Mitch101 on 2/10/2010 12:38:47 PM , Rating: 3
The FDA has a problem with you importing your medication even though you can get them cheaper from another country. Sure they are scams out there and a lot of them but there are also legit places to get needed medication much cheaper made from the same manufacturing facility.

This is probably no different. Your getting something legit but someone out there is trying to make a buck selling someone packages with anti-freeze in them. The FDA steps in claiming health concerns which is legit because of the bogus fakes but messes it up for everyone.

China even makes fake toothpaste.


RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/10/2010 1:13:13 PM , Rating: 5
Actually all of the e-liquids I buy are from U.S. based vendors selling US made pharma quality nicotine and USP PG/VG. I avoid anyone selling Chinese made e-liquids. It costs considerably more, but in my mind, it's worth it.

There are many vendors selling quality products in the e-cig space.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: More scare tactics?
By slybootz on 2/10/2010 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 4
For you to say that 'we have no idea what is in these products' is laughable. Granted, some e-cig users are using inferior and poorly constructed devices, and using e-liquids that are not manufactured in the US. Many others, though, are using products manufactured in a laboratory, and e-liquids manufactured in a safe environment. Myself, I make my own e-liquid, so that I am positive I know what ingredients I am inhaling. All ingredients used are USP-grade(US pharmaceutical), and therefore has already undergone extensive testing. For an analogy, what about a person whose hobby is HomeBrew Beer making. If they are using FDA approved ingredients, their beer is acknowledged as 'safe'. They don't need an FDA study on every brew they make just to confirm its safety.

By saying that every e-cigarette user does not know what they are putting in their bodies, you are generalizing quite a large community of e-cigarette users.


RE: More scare tactics?
By bighairycamel on 2/10/2010 5:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
I am not responding specifically to your above post because I've read most of your posts here and I find that you're making many assumptions about the FDA and what they can and can't regulate that are incorrect.

First of all, e-cigs ARE NOT an illegal market like you claim in at least one of your posts. E-cigs ARE NOT banned, only imports are banned.

Secondly, the FDA does not and cannot regulate everything humans ingest. The only reason why the FDA has their nose in this mess is because the e-cigs were being marketed as a healthy lifestyle product. Think dietary supplements. The FDA does not regulate vitamins or minerals for example, but if you release a product with unknown/untested compounds and label them as "healthy" (like diet pills) the FDA can, and probably will, step in.

I work in a highly FDA regulated business so we regularly take training courses on their rules and regulations.

And think about this. Cigarettes are not currently regulated. Why would they even be allowed on the market being full of carcinogens if the FDA had their say? E-cig manufactures feel the same rules should apply to them. However unlike e-cigs, cigarettes have never claimed to be "healthy".


RE: More scare tactics?
By bighairycamel on 2/10/2010 5:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
Err, quick correction. I forgot about the legislation from last year that allows the FDA to partially regulate cigarettes. However, it specifically stated in the bill that they could not outright ban them. They are essentialy only given authority to regulate chemical levels and issue recalls.


RE: More scare tactics?
By Richardito on 2/11/2010 9:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
"However unlike e-cigs, cigarettes have never claimed to be "healthy"." What age are you, 14? Cigarettes were being marketed as healthy when they came out. This is what I hate about the internet- ignorance camouflaging as knowledge...


RE: More scare tactics?
By bighairycamel on 2/11/2010 10:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
OK so in the LAST 60 YEARS cigarettes have not been marketed as healthy. My god, a generalized statement! I'm so young and ignorant! Please enlighten us on all things Mr. internet encyclopedia!

Next time you could just correct the statement rather than making a personal attack. THAT, my friend, is the trademark of a 14 year old.


RE: More scare tactics?
By slybootz on 2/11/2010 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
LOL e-anger frustrates me.

It is unfortunate that some e-cigarette companies have advertised their products as healthy, and as cigarette-cessation devices. Most reputable USA-based companies don't advertise this way, because if you advertise your product as a type of medical device, then of course you would have to obtain clearance from the FDA.

The companies that I purchase from, they market their products as an alternative to cigarette smoking. Think dietary supplement(although obviously an e-cigarette is NOT the same as a vitamin or other supplement).


RE: More scare tactics?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 3:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cigarettes were being marketed as healthy when they came out.

Cite, please. When DID cigarettes come out? Because people have been aware that tobacco is unhealthy since the 1800s, if not before. The best you can say is that people were unaware of HOW unhealthy it was.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 3:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ughh..
quote:
On June 12, 1957, Surgeon General Leroy E. Burney declared it the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service that the evidence pointed to a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.
That was the first time that the Surgeon General actually made the link between smoking and cancer.

It was not until a later report in 1964 that it was actually confirmed and it was not until 1970 that all packs of cigarettes came with a warning in the name of the Surgeon General.

A study in 1958 showed that even after the first warning from the Surgeon General, only 44% of Americans believed smoking caused cancer. By 1970 that number jumped to over 80%.

In other words you are quite wrong, for years cigarettes were marketed and sold as a healthy product, with the majority of the public believing it to be true even 50 years ago.


RE: More scare tactics?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 4:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
You've succeeded in refuting nothing I said. Lung Cancer does not equal the totality of health. Again, it was known LONG before the lung cancer link was established that smoking was unhealthy.

Please show evidence that cigarettes were marketed as "healthy".


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 4:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man, do you live under a rock?

Google Image 'Old cigarette ads' and look for yourself.

Take a quick peek at some of the old adds from the 30's through the 50's.. They flat out lie in most of the ads.

For example: "Scientific Evidence on the Effects of Smoking! After 10 months, the medical specialist reports that he observed no adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses of the group smoking Chesterfield."

The tobacco companies shoved adds down our throats, claiming they were healthy and had no adverse effects and we ate it up.

http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/10/pseudo...


RE: More scare tactics?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 5:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Google Image 'Old cigarette ads' and look for yourself.

I just did. I found nothing indicating that people used to think cigarettes are "healthy". The link you provided does nothing to support that claim, either. The best you can find are examples of cigarettes claiming to be healthIER than other cigarettes.

Conclusion: You are full of it.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 5:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Buddy you are arguing semantics.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cJVzEsrhDqY/SQrpZa3OdHI/...

'no adverse effects on the nose throat and sinuses'..

If something has no adverse effects, is it good or bad for you?
You don't have to use the word healthy to know what they are trying to get across.


RE: More scare tactics?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 6:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
You need to go to dictionary.com and look up the word "qualifier".

Again, I'm asking for evidence to support the original assertion, which is that "cigarettes were marketed as healthy when they came out". You're trying to claim that A cigarette company claimed they found "no adverse effects" in specific parts of the body but make no claim about overall health in general. Further, their claim may very well be true; take fifty nonsmokers and have them smoke a pack - heck, even a carton - of Chesterfields over a reasonable span of time and I can all but guarantee you that you won't find any adverse effects. This is because the harm of cigarettes comes through regular use over a long period of time.

In short, you've proven only that cigarette companies have, in the past, made silly and insignificant claims about their product that sound positive if one doesn't think about it too much. That's hardly support for the original claim that I initially responded to.

I don't know what game you're playing, but you clearly aren't prepared to argue this topic.


RE: More scare tactics?
By cptObv on 2/10/2010 12:53:30 PM , Rating: 1
Well, if the study is correct, it's no wonder you fell better now using e-fag. After all, most cancer strike out of the blue, and people are actually quite "healthy" even if their death date is already computable.

Never heard of Randy Pausch and his last lecture ?


RE: More scare tactics?
By melvin121 on 2/10/2010 1:38:41 PM , Rating: 5
you my friend are a douche bag. Perhaps you should find out some facts before you run off your mouth first.

Yes its agreeable that smoking is bad/stupid/wrong whatever (being an ex-smoker myself) Yet people still do it. And despite knowing the health risks, it is still one of the hardest things to stop/quit.

I have been researching this e-cig thing for a while, and have even converted 5 smokers who thought they would never quit to only using these now, all stating the same thing: how much better they feel, less stinky, I cant belive I've stopped "regular" smoking etc. Thats somthing these other FDA approved aids simply dont or cant do well.

Point is this: 50 or so years ago people smoked not really knowing the dangers or prolonged health risks with it. But yet over time you could feel/hear your health changing, by wheezing or coughing, being out of breath etc. Now comes along this product and people are stopping the smoking all together! And really when compared to regular smokes, it cant be WORSE for them, but by the sounds of it far from it. I say if it gets you off the "real" smelly ones go for it.

And one of the other posters nailed it: Imagine all the smokers in the US/CAN swithced to e-cigs. Thats a whole S%&T load of revune lost in taxes. Tell me the govt is not craping their pants at that very thought! They better jump on board, regulate it and tax the hell out of it just like anything else before they miss the boat.


RE: More scare tactics?
By marsbound2024 on 2/10/2010 1:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well put sir.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2010 2:12:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Point is this: 50 or so years ago people smoked not really knowing the dangers or prolonged health risks with it. But yet over time you could feel/hear your health changing, by wheezing or coughing, being out of breath etc. Now comes along this product and people are stopping the smoking all together! And really when compared to regular smokes, it cant be WORSE for them, but by the sounds of it far from it. I say if it gets you off the "real" smelly ones go for it.
Problem is, there have been no studies nor people to confirm these long term effects that would happen 'over time'. Do you know anyone that has taken these e-cigs for 10 years? Most likely the answer is no, so while they may not be as bad as smoking, you are merely making an assumption that you can not possibly backup.

Making matters worse, you are comparing the effects of smoking to completely different chemicals which are contained within the ecigs. Why would you assume that the outcome of using these ecigs would be the same? The only common trait between the two is that they both contain nicotine and they are both inhaled.

The article also does not mention that the reason the FDA is banning ecigs is because particular chemicals found within them have not been submitted to the FDA (let alone approved).

So regardless of your personal feelings, these companies have have sidestepped the law, the FDA has no idea about nicotine levels or other chemicals contained within these devices, and as such these products should not be on the shelves. You can't knock the FDA if these companies have not even submitted their product for approval, its not like the FDA is holding up the approval process.


RE: More scare tactics?
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 3:50:47 PM , Rating: 1
"Problem is, there have been no studies nor people to confirm these long term effects that would happen 'over time'."

There are over 1200 chemicals in a cup of coffee...only 2 or 3 of which have had studies done of them to see what the long-term effects are.


RE: More scare tactics?
By melvin121 on 2/10/2010 4:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Problem is, there have been no studies nor people to confirm these long term effects that would happen 'over time'. Do you know anyone that has taken these e-cigs for 10 years? Most likely the answer is no, so while they may not be as bad as smoking, you are merely making an assumption that you can not possibly backup


I was simply saying that 50 years ago there were no studies of long term usage (or 10 year studies like you put) of smoking either. So I find it odd that the FDA can boldly warn about potential health risks when their information is pretty much the same as yours/mine...

quote:
Making matters worse, you are comparing the effects of smoking to completely different chemicals which are contained within the ecigs. Why would you assume that the outcome of using these ecigs would be the same? The only common trait between the two is that they both contain nicotine and they are both inhaled.


Im comparing nicotine delivery, one from smoking and one from e-cigs. And people using e-cigs are saying that generally they are feeling better and notcing change in their bodies compared to when using a traditional cigarette. The common demonimator here being nicotine the "addicting" component of smoking end of story. The whole purpose of the e-cig is the delivery and even "enjoyment" of nicotine and smoking minus the 4000 known chemicals of smoking cigarrets, ones that are known to be toxic/cancer causing. The nictoine in itself has different arguments of being not bad, yet fatal if you have to much of it...

Hey Did you know that eating BBQ'ed food can cause cancer, especially charcol ones? why? cause of the burning of the charcol releasing carcinogens, just like smoking...So one argument I hear/see about e-cigs is the fact that your not burning anything, hence no carcinogens. Again, yes there are other chemicals, and yes some found in antifreeze, but you might want to chek out what else thats in..it might scare you.

What is unknow is that the current chemicals found in these e-cig are either: fatal/cancer causing/ or even lead to a whole new slue of health issues. But again, I thought I stated this in the first part of my post, info is unknown at this point.

As for the FDA, its owned and run by the gov't, and you cant tell me that some of their actions aren't exactly side stepping either.

I'm guessing your not a smoker (on my 6th week of no smoking ang going strong)...let me let you in on a secret. Yes smokers know its bad for them...its a weird complicated thing..but this may come to a suprise to you that generally, smokers do NOT have a death wish...So even though there is still so many unknowns of these e-cigs, so many smokers are butting out because of them. is there a risk? I dont know...but niether does the FDA.


RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/10/2010 4:53:32 PM , Rating: 4
October 2008: In a study funded by Ruyan, Health New Zealand conducts a detailed quantitative analysis and concludes that carcinogens and toxicants are present only below harmful levels. On the basis of the findings, the e-cigarette is rated several orders of magnitude (100 to 1000 times) less dangerous than smoking tobacco cigarettes. The nicotine dose is comparable to that of a medicinal nicotine inhaler. Overall, the product tested was deemed a "safe alternative to smoking." http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecigarette.htm

I think you do a great disservice to smokers scaring them out of trying something that is orders of magnitude safer than smoking.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you do a great disservice to smokers scaring them out of trying something that is orders of magnitude safer than smoking.
He didnt try and scare anyone, hes just making a valid point. Nobody knows the real risks of ecigs yet, as we don't have any long term studies to back it up.

Once again, you are naive to even consider a study based on a 5 year old product as credible. Even with cigarettes one could smoke for 5 years straight, quit and have no ill effects down the line, does that make cigarettes healthy? Furthermore these comparisons are ALL flawed, they all directly compare ecigs to cigarettes, totally disregarding that they only share a few of the same chemical properties.(most of which focus on the amount of nicotine, I have yet to see any study that looks at the other chemicals within ecigs in depth)

Furthermore, did you just scan the link you presented for facts that would prove your point?
quote:
Avoid bottled nicotine. Liquid nicotine (e-liquid) is commonly sold in small bottles of up to 30 mL or more, on the internet, or from stores in the USA, often meant to last consumers one month; often unlabelled as to nicotine dose. Health New Zealand Ltd does not recommend sale or use of e-liquid permitting a lethal dose of nicotine to be swallowed.*

Nicotine solution sold in child-proofed cartridges avoids this risk. Lethal dose for a child is 10mg nicotine. Many bottles on sale contain many times this amount. Even if the cap of a liquid nicotine bottle is child proofed, the risk remains if someone else leaves it open.

For adults, absorption of a fatal dose of 40-60 mg of nicotine could rapidly occur due to spilling the liquid on one’s skin while using liquid nicotine to (cheaply) fill an e-cigarette – a risk heightened by inattention (distraction, fatigue, alcohol, drugs). (Wash it off immediately). Gloves should always be worn.

Avoid gravity feed. E-cigarettes should not be tipped up above mouth level, as the e-cigarette liquid can ooze out and drain nicotine on to the lips.

Avoid child-openable brands of e-cigarette and refill cartridges. Some brands of e-cigarette and of refill cartridges can be pulled apart or opened by young children, giving access to the nicotine solution in which the refill wick is soaked. These brands are a potential hazard.*

What about all these potential hazards that are not even possible with normal cigarettes?

I'm not saying you should be scared of ecigs, I'm saying you should keep yourself informed. As I stated in another post, its very likely that inhaling carcinogens is worse than inhaling a form of vapor, but that does not make ecigs safe, and nobody can claim they are 100-1000 times safer until long term studies have been preformed.


RE: More scare tactics?
By slybootz on 2/11/2010 12:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
when it comes to the chemicals in e-cigarettes, there HAVE been studies on them, so please do not claim that there haven't. The ingredients in [most] e-liquids are: PG/VG(or both), nicotine, and flavoring(typically alcohol based). E-liquids contain a very minimal number of ingredients, as opposed to the 4000+ chemicals(and 43 carcinogenic ones in cigarettes that we KNOW about). If you do research, you will discover that the ingredients in e-liquids HAVE been studied, and have been deemed safe[at least safer than the chemicals in combusted tobacco products].


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 1:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
READ PLEASE! No long term studies, and NO clinical trials! This is a 5 year old product, are you actually trying to imply that long term / clinical studies of any value have been preformed? Look at what the WHO has to say:
quote:
The World Health Organization proclaimed in September 2008 that it does not consider the electronic cigarette to be a legitimate smoking cessation aid, and demanded that marketers immediately remove from their materials any suggestions that the WHO considers electronic cigarettes safe and effective.[11] The WHO states that to its knowledge, "no rigorous, peer-reviewed studies have been conducted showing that the electronic cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement therapy. WHO does not discount the possibility that the electronic cigarette could be useful as a smoking cessation aid." WHO Tobacco Free Initiative director ad interim Douglas Bettcher states, "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 . 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. "


RE: More scare tactics?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 10:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No long term studies, and NO clinical trials!

No need. The chemicals in E-cig fluid are fairly well understood. You might as well say you don't know how a Civic works after someone tells you about the function of an Accord.


RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/11/2010 1:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Typical. Original objection was no studies. Presented with fact, the argument changes to only short term studies.

You obviously have no first hand knowledge of what you're talking about and sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Naive? I research, buy selectively and assess outcomes. If by chance there are some problems down the road, it's got to be a better outcome than smoking real cigarettes.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 3:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
Stop being a troll, go read up and look at my post. My original response specifically targets the long terms effects, I never switched my position after being presented with 'facts'.
quote:
Problem is, there have been no studies nor people to confirm these long term effects that would happen 'over time'.


RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/11/2010 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the one that said "Get this through your head, no testing"?

Or "No studies"

You seem to have a problem discussing issues or adding to the conversation without an insulting, condescending tone. I would say that would make you the troll.


RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/11/2010 4:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
or

"The only real fact here is that nobody can claim any fact about ecigs as true. Why? Because there has no been any clinical or government body testing."


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or "No studies"
Are you serious? You grabbed two words out of the entire quote when the quote in question specifically mentions long term effects?
quote:
Problem is, there have been no studies nor people to confirm these long term effects that would happen 'over time'.
As for my first comment, thats a different thread and a different topic. You made the claim that there are 'many vendors selling quality products' when there are no clinical tests to back it up. I probably should have backed up my claim more and I do I apologize if you felt that my comments were condescending.

I understand that you are a user and as such you are going to have strong opinions about ecigs, but the fact remains no clinical testing has been performed, as such nobody has the authority to make any claims about how safe ecigs really are.
(Good or Bad)

In other words I'm not advocating for either side here, I'm just saying that all studies are inconclusive at the very best so keep yourself informed.


RE: More scare tactics?
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 12:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm guessing your not a smoker (on my 6th week of no smoking ang going strong)...let me let you in on a secret. Yes smokers know its bad for them...its a weird complicated thing..but this may come to a suprise to you that generally, smokers do NOT have a death wish...So even though there is still so many unknowns of these e-cigs, so many smokers are butting out because of them. is there a risk? I dont know...but niether does the FDA.
I am a smoker thank you very much (also trying to quit). I basically agree with you, as we seem to be on the same page.

The fact here remains that all studies conducted have been short term, and its really naive for one to think that a few studies performed over a small period of time as conclusive. Even smoking cigarettes it can take 50 years of use to get cancer, how on earth can anyone make the claim that these are safe?

These are not even being marketed as smoking cessation devices in most cases (i.e devices to help quit smoking). They are mainly marketed as safe smoking alternatives, when nobody can possibly prove it as such. That includes all of you who have tried it, and use it on a daily basis. Just because you don't feel the same symptoms as smoking, does not mean its good for you.

I'm not against ecigs, I think they could potentially be a good alternative to cigarettes, I'm just not that naive to think they are a safe alternative as it is impossible to prove it as such as this point in time.

In the end its not a bad thing for anyone to quit smoking, by nature inhaling carcinogens are more than likely worse for you in the long run, but their are a bunch of avid users even on this board that would like to claim that there are little to no side effects when they could not possibly know this for sure. Whether it be you, me, the FDA or some other government agency, nobody really knows.

Consume what you would like, but don't be spreading false information.


RE: More scare tactics?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 10:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact here remains that all studies conducted have been short term, and its really naive for one to think that a few studies performed over a small period of time as conclusive.

The fact here remains that it's silly to demand a study when there's no real mystery; the ingredients, and the properties of those ingredients, are very easy to understand. Demanding a study is asinine.


RE: More scare tactics?
By Jalek on 2/10/2010 5:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's always about the money.
Find another source for tax revenues.


RE: More scare tactics?
By Harinezumi on 2/10/2010 5:19:34 PM , Rating: 2
You have Product A and Product B. Product B is proving to be an effective substitute for Product A. Product A has been proven to cause cancer and a whole slew of other health problems in a significant portion of its consumers. Product B is an untested blank slate, but does not appear to be immediately fatal.

In what universe is it in the public interest to delay the deployment of Product B? If you are trying to make the claim that a known bad product is preferable to an unknown one, you are merely spreading FUD.

Is it a good idea to do further testing to determine Product B's long-term effects? Certainly! But should the public be stuck with Product A, which is known to be deadly, in the meantime? Hell no!


RE: More scare tactics?
By THELEGACYMAN on 2/10/2010 9:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like some one is pro tobacco cigarettes over E-Cigs. He must be Camel Joe . I just stopped smoking tobacco cigs a month ago ans now just e-cigs. I went from a pack a day to 30 drops of 11mg nic. e-juice. One month I went from 18mg to 11mg. I feel great. Most important all the expensive stop smoking aids only left me smoking 50% more until it leveled back off to a pack a day. 20yrs of a pack a day and no hope of stopping. E-cigs do it for me. Say what you will but at the least I know I can stop smoking e-cigs where I had a 20yr lost battle with tobacco cigs.
Taxes: Yes the states and gov will loose rev. but the public will be healthier. e-cigs are still a bit new and they will get better with time. what were the first tobacco cigs like and what were the health effects.


RE: More scare tactics?
By nbourbaki on 2/11/2010 4:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's always easy to tax the other guy. Since the majority of Americans are now non-smokers, it's far too easy to fill a budget shortfall by taxing the minority. While this might be unpopular, I also don't support state lotteries. I mean really, the state is promoting a get rich scheme. If everyone paid their share of the tax burden, instead of taxing one group disproportionally, maybe we could have a frank discussion about the overall tax burden.

I'm with you on the e-cigs. I've tried the patches and Chanix and neither of them helped in the least. Going on a month on e-cigs and I don't even want a cigarette.


RE: More scare tactics?
By therealnickdanger on 2/10/2010 1:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
I just finished reading that book. Pretty lame, actually. Just one anecdote after another that everyone has already heard a thousand times. Anyway, both my grandma and grandpa smoked like smokestacks since the 1920s, for almost 70 years straight! My grandpa got lung cancer, but it was ultimately a chemotherapy-overdose that weakened and killed him. My grandma quit and lived another 12 years without so much as a black spot in her lungs. There's no magic formula.


RE: More scare tactics?
By marsbound2024 on 2/10/2010 1:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. [This article] definitely seems to be erring on the invalid side. There was a study done in New Zealand about electronic cigarettes that I think people should look at. The article is linked to Wikipedia's electronic cigarette article.


RE: More scare tactics?
By ATTFdiggs on 2/10/2010 5:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am happy you posted this about the MG level of the liquid used in the testing. I started my attempt to quit tobacco with 18MG liquids. This did nothing to cut my cravings in the least. I followed a couple of forums and researched the different brands / styles. But nothing worked until I went to a stronger liquid. I was amazed at how the 24MG liquid shut down any craving I had for tobacco. If I vape too much of the 24MG liquid, I get the exact same symptoms I would get from smoking several cigarettes in a short time period. Why do this study on one dosage level? The liquid varies in strengths from 0MG to like 56MG. I think the 56MG stuff is intended for those that make their own liquids. But I don't understand why they didn't test more strengths.

I will say that the e-cig has been a great change. No I can't say for sure it is better for me in the long run, but with all the bad press tobacco has received over the years, it is very hard for me to believe it is any worse. I certainly feel much better. But like anything these days there are studies to prove white is black and black is white. Aren't we all going to die in 2012 anyway? :)


Are you serious?
By WoWCow on 2/10/2010 11:59:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nicotine has some beneficial health effects, particularly for the mentally ill, so it is disappointing that e-cigarettes appear unable to deliver the compound.


Now look, this article stated nicotine (one of the most addictive substance known to mankind) has failed to deliver in e-cig products.

I honestly think and feel that is a GOOD thing; human bodies do not process nicotine well (if at all). The article you linked is possibly good for those who are already mentally ill, but definitely not something the general population should take. Why not suggest offering alternative methods of intake?

It is really better for those smokers to NOT have to take a drug; giving them the placebo effect is enough. I sure as hell don't want nicotine vapor catching on to me and giving me the shakes.

Want an example? Sigmund Freud could quit cocaine, but couldn't quit smoking... what does that tell you about nicotine?




RE: Are you serious?
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/10/2010 12:09:16 PM , Rating: 1
You are misinformed, nicotine administered by itself is actually relatively non habiting forming.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

quote:
Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[36] However, only after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.[37]


Large doses can obviously be fatal because it's a stimulant, but in small doses can deliver a variety of benefits. From the same article:

quote:
For instance, recent studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[47] Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking.[48][49] Smoking also appears to interfere with development of Kaposi's sarcoma,[50] breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene,[51] preeclampsia,[52] and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma.[53] A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be nicotine acting as an anti-inflammatory agent, and interfering with the inflammation-related disease process, as nicotine has vasoconstrictive effects.[54]


Also, it can help with mental illness, as the linked article states, and epilepsy.


RE: Are you serious?
By Flunk on 2/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Are you serious?
By Jellodyne on 2/10/2010 12:39:54 PM , Rating: 5
If the wiki is wrong point out how. Or point out conflicting research. Just slamming wikipedia as a source (for an informal blog posting anyway) says 1. you can't find any conflicting "real" sources and 2. you're an idiot.


RE: Are you serious?
By porkpie on 2/10/2010 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
All the research I've read says Jason (and Wikpedia) is wrong:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6405269/
http://www.trdrp.org/research/PageGrant.asp?grant_...

If other chemicals in the smoke is what's addictive, not nicotine..then why do nicotine patches control the craving?


RE: Are you serious?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2010 1:07:46 PM , Rating: 5
Jason has it half right, the super addictive properties of cigarette smoking come from the addition of MAOIs. Nicotine raises dopamine levels and MAOIs hinder your ability to clean out excess dopamine levels creating a sort of 'perfect storm' of addiction.

All that being said, your nicotine patches, inhalers etc will still raise dopamine levels, which would still help control your craving as your body is getting the increased levels, just not at the same level as smoking a cigarette.

Personally when I was trying to quit with the gum, I found myself having cravings far more often then if I were to have a cigarette, most likely because I was only getting a smaller dopamine fix compared to what I was used too.


RE: Are you serious?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2010 12:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.[36] However, only after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential. This is similar in effect to amphetamine.[37]
A few lines later..
quote:
Modern research shows that nicotine acts on the brain to produce a number of effects. Specifically, its addictive nature has been found to show that nicotine activates reward pathways—the circuitry within the brain that regulates feelings of pleasure and euphoria.[38]
The article contradicts itself.. by reward pathways, they mean it raises dopamine levels, with or without MAOI's..

Most of your most common party drugs affect dopamine levels (such as ecstasy and cocaine) in a similar way, they too have addictive properties. If someone can show me any drug that vastly affects dopamine levels but is not have addictive properties, then I would be willing to agree with the article.
Until then...


RE: Are you serious?
By thurston on 2/10/2010 8:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone can show me any drug that vastly affects dopamine levels but is not have addictive properties, then I would be willing to agree with the article.


LSD, Psilocybin and Mescaline. They all three affect dopamine and serotonin levels but actually all have very non-addictive properties. Take any of the three drugs a few days in a row and they will show diminished effect. The tolerance is a cross-tolerance effect. A few days of using any of these drugs will cause diminished effect among the others(ex. use LSD three days in a row then take psilocybin on the forth day, little to no effect would be felt from the psilocybin. None of the drugs cause any kind of withdrawal effects.


RE: Are you serious?
By slybootz on 2/10/2010 10:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Valid points, but still misleading. While all three of these hallucinogens are non-addictive, not all of them have an effect on dopamine. LSD affects serotonin and dopamine receptors. Psilocybin actually has not been proven to directly affect dopamine; it's main reaction is with serotonin receptors. Similarly, Mescaline does not directly affect dopamine, but rather it binds to, and activates, serotonin receptors in the brain. Unfortunately, since the 60s and as a result of the War-On-Drugs, hallucinogenic research on these substances has not gotten very far.

As far as addiction to these substances, they are not chemically addictive, no. But can they be psychologically addictive? YES. Pretty much anything that affects the reward pathway in the brain can become psychologically addictive. Example: while Marijuana is not chemically addictive, there are MANY people who have become psychologically dependent on the substance, which eventually manifests into a physical addiction(the body cannot function properly without it).

But this is a topic for another discussion....let's get back to the matter at hand: e-cigarettes.


RE: Are you serious?
By SPOOFE on 2/11/2010 10:58:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But can they be psychologically addictive? YES. Pretty much anything that affects the reward pathway in the brain can become psychologically addictive.

Like TV, sex, food, video games, following politics, fighting, drinking, driving, drinking and driving, walking, running, hiking, playing golf/tennis/hockey/etc., having conversations, not having conversations, reading, writing, collecting things, listening to music, going to clubs, doing a good job, getting an A on your test...

Clearly, there's some point where we can see a difference between "it's addictive" and "it can be addictive".


RE: Are you serious?
By omnicronx on 2/10/2010 12:48:16 PM , Rating: 3
Please don't quote wiki articles.. Nicotine by itself directly affects dopamine levels, but it is the MAOIs that helps your body clean up excess dopamine levels which essentially turns it into a super addictive drug cocktail.

MAOIs certainly enhance the addictive properties of Nicotine, but as it stands, to say its relatively non habit forming is incorrect. Its still is very much so habit forming, its just not one of the most addictive substances on earth when consumed alone.

Studies have also shown that nicotine alone can still have negative effects on fetal development, so it definitely still has its risks, it also would still raise blood pressure which is also unhealthy.

Nicotine by itself is very similar to caffeine, generally harmless by itself, and they both raise dopamine levels, and amazingly both have addictive properties. (as will pretty much anything that raises your dopamine levels)


RE: Are you serious?
By Smilin on 2/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Are you serious?
By jimhsu on 2/10/2010 1:40:44 PM , Rating: 3
Please read the actual papers, people (sigh, no one does it anymore):

Transient behavioral sensitization to nicotine becomes long-lasting with monoamine oxidases inhibitors
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0091-3057(03)00223-5

Anyways:

Figure 2 - They show that behavioral sensitization (locomotion) with 0.5 mg/kg nicotine reverts to baseline levels about 90 days after injection.
Figure 3 - Coadministration of tranylcypromine, a MAOI, with nicotine significantly increases the baseline levels of sensitization, when compared with saline.
Figure 4 - Pargyline, another MAOI, has similar effects.

They conclude:

Results indicate that about half of the behavioral sensitization to 0.5 mg/kg nicotine and 85% of the behavioral sensitization to 0.3 mg/kg nicotine is lost after 3 weeks. ...


FOS
By HDBanger on 2/10/2010 1:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
They are full of shit, period. I used to smoked 2 packs of camel filters a day. I started ecigs, (vaping), christmas eve of 2008. I have not touched an "analog" (real cig), in that time. It costs me about $40 dollars a month to vape as opposed to $60x4 it would cost me to smoke. I buy from only U.S. suppliers, (Puresmoker.com). My lungs have cleared out, I have not had one withdrawal symptom. I don't reek of cig smoke anymore. I can vape anywhere I wish, no second hand smoke, no FIRST hand smoke. The propaganda being put of about ecigs is because they are losing money like no tomorrow already from lost tobacco sales. It is getting bigger and more popular daily. It does work, and if you haven't tried it your ignorant.




RE: FOS
By melvin121 on 2/10/2010 2:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Totaly agree.

I just quit smoking about 6 weeks ago..I did it cold turkey, I had my reasons. But i did enjoy smoking as bad as that sounds but as a vaper I know you can understand. Im getting married this year and Im totally getting a e-cig starter kit with 0mg nicotine just cause if I get the urge to smoke in a drunken craze during my bachelour party or get stressed out with wedding crap, I know I can use that to fall back on and not be worried of getting hooked again.


RE: FOS
By omnicronx on 2/10/2010 3:23:16 PM , Rating: 3
The only real fact here is that nobody can claim any fact about ecigs as true. Why? Because there has no been any clinical or government body testing.

Everything that falls under the realm of the FDA must go through this process, good or bad, deadly or healthy.

The way I see it is if these manufacturers had nothing to hide, they would have submitted these products to the FDA years ago. So please explain to me why on earth a company which has 600k sales per year would not do so?

You are using you personal feelings to justify what is basically an illegal industry. Even if a pharmaceutical company developed a miracle drug that cured everything, it would not be cleared for sale until it had been properly tested, so why should ecigs be any different?


RE: FOS
By ZachDontScare on 2/10/2010 4:24:33 PM , Rating: 3
I never smoked, and dont really care about the subject.

But apparently the posters above have tested it, and it works for them. Believe it or not, not everybody needs a government stamp of approval for every aspect of their life.


RE: FOS
By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 11:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But apparently the posters above have tested it, and it works for them. Believe it or not, not everybody needs a government stamp of approval for every aspect of their life.
I'm not making that claim, heck I'm not even saying they are bad for you. What you personally consume is your own business, what you sell is not. The importers have not followed the rules, and have not even submitted their product for testing. As such they should not be allowed to sell their product.

I can see that people here are not looking at the bigger picture, especially those are are actual users. Do people already forget what happened with the kids toys filled with lead? This is what happens when importers do not follow regulations, and what incentive will their be to make a quality product if we allow them to bypass safety precautions that all US vendors must abide by?

Its a slippery slope my friends.. slippery slope..


RE: FOS
By melvin121 on 2/10/2010 4:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is the FDA end all be all? Correct me if Im wrong but isnt the FDA more of a North American association?

So your telling me that if some wonder drug was available over in Europe (cause you know the germans make everything lol @ shamwow) That cured a particual ailment that you or someone you cared for was suffering from (knock on wood), your telling me that you wouldnt go out of your way to import this thing, even if it didnt have the FDA's approval? Dont give me this personal feelings crap, push comes to shove you would order it...you sound like a broken record with that argument.

There would never be any advancements if that were the case..


RE: FOS
By nbourbaki on 2/10/2010 5:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
October 2008: In a study funded by Ruyan, Health New Zealand conducts a detailed quantitative analysis and concludes that carcinogens and toxicants are present only below harmful levels. On the basis of the findings, the e-cigarette is rated several orders of magnitude (100 to 1000 times) less dangerous than smoking tobacco cigarettes. The nicotine dose is comparable to that of a medicinal nicotine inhaler. Overall, the product tested was deemed a "safe alternative to smoking." http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecigarette.htm

Really, most companies go to great lengths to avoid the FDA or any government agency because it's a time and money sink without an upside.

Actually, a federal judge has enjoined the FDA from stopping the importation of e-cigs because they had no jurisdiction. You think all of this is flying under the FDA's radar?


RE: FOS
By borowki2 on 2/11/2010 4:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
I know. I have one. I'm sure every user probably experiencew this once, where you overfill the cartridge and end up with a massive nicotine high. This stuff works. We're not talking exactly rocket science here. A e-cig is basically a li-ion battery plus liquid nicotine. The heating element vaporizes the liquid and you inhale it. If you puff it correctly you can get as large a cloud of smoke as from real cigarettes.


research
By slybootz on 2/10/2010 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
There are a lot of great comments to this article, and unfortunately a few very misinformed comments as well. I will try to clarify a few points that are typically misunderstood about e-cigarettes. Some may think my knowledge is biased, but it is research based. I have been using an e-cigarette for over a year, with no side effects. I was able to quit a 1-2pack/day cigarette habit.

Antifreeze - i've heard people say over and over, that e-cigarettes contain antifreeze. This is just nonsense, and ill-informed data. Yes, PG, or propylene glycol(one of the main ingredients in many nicotine e-liquids) is used in antifreeze. But propylene glycol is also found in a LOT of products: shampoo, deodorant, food, food coloring, hospital-safe air sanitizers. If you use an ASTHMA INHALER, you are inhaling PG. If you've ever been to a rock concert or theater production that uses a smoke/fog machine, you are inhaling PG. Many people are misinformed about the dangers of PG, and claim there have been no studies on the effects of PG....

This website has a collection of studies done on PG.
http://www.vapersclub.com/pg.html

Some, very few in fact, have an acute allergy to propylene glycol, and therefore cannot use it. They have another option: VG, or vegetable glycerin. Very similar in properties to PG, but chemically different. When it comes to e-liquid, the liquid nicotine solution found in pre-filled cartridges, there are only a few ingredients in these liquids. The most simple e-liquids contain: either propylene glycol(PG) or vegetable glycerin(VG), or a mix of the two, nicotine, and flavoring. Some e-liquids may also contain alcohol, used for lowering viscosity(thickness) of the liquid. Some liquids also may contain distilled water, used for the same purpose.
As for the import of e-cigs and their components from places like China, I do believe the FDA has a valid point to want to regulate import of nicotine. However, as many other have pointed out, there are many reputable USA-based manufacturers of e-cigarettes and e-liquid. Personally, I only use USA-made products, but many Chinese companies, such as Smoore(http://www.s-moore.com/), have strict productions standards in their factories, and are generally acknowledged as safe.

As for the argument that long term testing has not been done specifically in regards to e-cigarettes, but this is because e-cigs have only been available to the USA for 2-3years. Long term testing HAS been done on traditional smoked cigarettes, and the health effects are devastating...yet they are still available on every street corner. Think about energy drinks such as Red Bull: energy drinks have only been marketed in the USA since the 1990s, and Red Bull in specific has only been available since 1997. There have been no studies that prove that Red Bull and other energy drinks are lethal, but over-use of them can result in caffeine addiction, diabetes, and other health problems. Still, these drinks are still widely available to those who wish to purchase them and are aware of potential side effects.

Why should e-cigarettes be treated differently than products with similar relative circumstances?

E-cigarettes are not for everyone, just like Nicorette gum, Chantix, the nicotine patch, and other Nicotine Delivery Systems are not for everyone. I know, for me at least, that e-cigarettes are one of the main reasons why I do not smoke analog cigarettes anymore. While the technology behind e-cigs may be new and different, we should all be able to agree that e-cigarettes are significantly safer than combusted tobacco cigarettes.

Feel free to correct me if I am misinformed. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people claim to know the facts, when instead they have done little or no un-biased research. I am not a doctor, but simply one, of thousands of people, who have had a positive experience from e-cigarettes. I will continue to use my PV(personal vaporizer, another term for e-cig), because I know it works for me.




RE: research
By slybootz on 2/10/2010 3:57:49 PM , Rating: 3
forgot to mention another comparison:

Tobacco smoke from analog cigarettes contains about 4000 chemicals, 43 known to be carcinogenic.

Several e-liquid manufacturers have done studies on the chemical content of exhaled e-cigarette vapor, and found that only a handful of chemical compounds are being exhaled(less than 1% the amount created by burning a regular cigarette), and none of these chemicals have been shown to be carcinogenic. Results will vary from different e-liquid manufacturers, but in general, studies have shown that the vapor is safe(at least 99% safer than cigarette smoke).


Nicotine in E cigs
By EcigsEjuice on 2/11/2010 6:23:41 AM , Rating: 2
Haa haaa
Now they're trying a different approach. And where does this study come from? Virginia one of the largest toxic tobacco producing states in the Nation. Get over it, E cigs rule!
Most ingredients in E liquids are found in every day food additives, without the TAR,SECOND HAND SMOKE,CHEMICALS AND ALL THE OTHER 4000 LETHAL CHEMICALS AS THOSE FOUND IN THE TOXIC TOBACCO CIGARETTE. I have been using an electronic cigarette for 9 months now and I GET MY NICOTINE AND DO NOT USE TOXIC TOBACCO CIGARETTES ANY MORE. SO QUIT THE LIES AND SCARE TACTICS THEY'RE GETTING OLD




RE: Nicotine in E cigs
By MamiyaOtaru on 2/11/2010 11:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
if you think I'm reading that visual abortion of a post, you're out of your mind


RE: Nicotine in E cigs
By slybootz on 2/11/2010 12:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. CAPSLOCK IS NOT CRUISE-CONTROL FOR COOL!

Yelling opinions is not the way to go about educating the uninformed masses about electronic cigarettes.


FDA Evaluation
By spookynutz on 2/10/2010 3:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was trying to quit smoking myself, and I looked heavily into the e-cig. I did read the FDA evaluation before purchasing one, which is actually where I first heard about it. A year ago there were a lot of web articles referencing this study and the e-cig. The researchers did find diethylene glyclol in one import manufacturers e-liquid. (555 High flavor). However, all other 17 liquids involved in the evaluation contained less than harmful levels of all ingredients. None of the others contained DEG. The study is available online.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch...

I have used the e-cigarette. As a 12+ year smoker (Pack-a-day Camel Menthols), I can honestly say it was the only cessation method that actually worked for me on all fronts. It is the only worthwhile alternative in my mind. It completely satisfied every craving I had associated with a real cigarette. Throat hit, head rush, and oral fixation. Whereas gums, patches, etc. all just made me wish I was smoking a real cigarette instead. In some cases I ended up doing just that.

While I'm not qualified to discount this article, whether they actually deliver nicotine or not is irrelevant in my mind. As a last resort it helped me quit smoking regular cigarettes, and my only regret is that I didn't use it as the first resort. The e-cig itself I quit without even consciously thinking about.




RE: FDA Evaluation
By UncleRufus on 2/10/2010 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
There haven't been enough studies about e-cigs, true.

However. I know this.

I smoked for 16 years. Tried all kinds of crap, including gum, the patch, prescriptions, etc...

None of them worked.

I bought an e-cig from a local shop about 2 months ago. I made the transition from regular to e-cig almost effortlessly. I wanted a regular cigarette for maybe a day or two, but the e-cig was an acceptable substitute, AND I could use it in the apartment, at work, at a restaurant, etc..That was a big deal, as I hadn't smoked in my apartment for many years.

I would say I used it slightly more than regular cigarettes for the first couple of weeks, but then I started using it less and less. I carried it around in my pocket, which was great, because I could take one or two puffs if I felt the need, and then just put it back in my pocket. It wasn't like I needed to finish a whole cigarette.

I smoked less and less until, about 2 weeks ago, after about 1.5 months of usage...I just haven't bothered taking a puff off of it. AND I don't feel like having a smoke. It's still in my jacket pocket, but it's been sitting there like an unused security blanket, honestly.

So, smoke free for 2 months, and haven't even used the e-cig in a couple weeks. Honestly they could be twice as bad for as regular smokes, but if you can get off of them that much easier, it's still worth it.

So it's been like gold for me.

That said...there seems to be a WIDE variation in quality with these things. Most seem to be made in China and are really cheap. I would much rather see a good quality made-in-america version.

Hell, they are missing the boat. If Camel made one of these, I would have paid more for it happily.


e-cigs
By Shadowmaster625 on 2/10/2010 2:50:51 PM , Rating: 3
Oh the e-cigs definately give you nicotine... when they work. Unfortunately the vaporizers tend to break like glass nails. If it is broken it might not deliver any nicotine. IMO they should be banned because of poor quality. They need to be made in USA and have a 1 year warranty. People who have not had quality problems are either lying or just really lucky.




Slandering Dr. Eissenberg
By VocalEK on 2/10/2010 7:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
To state that the test subjects were inhaling a "toxic vapor" borders on slanderous toward Dr. Eissenberg. He would not knowingly expose test subjects to potential harm. Furthermore, his research, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, was required to undergo approval by an Institutional Review Board. The IRB knew ahead of time that test subjects would not be exposed to anything more toxic than the cigarette smoke they inahled on a daily basis. Indeed, the vapor is thousands of times less toxic than cigarette smoke.

There are two glaring inaccuracies in this blog:

"At least one manufacturer used diethylene glycol as a key ingredient , a chemical commonly used in antifreeze and toxic to humans."

The FDA tested 18 cartridges made by two manufacturers. One cartridge contained 1% diethylene glycol (DEG). Since when does 1% constitute a "key ingredient"? Now FDA characterized DEG as "antifreeze", knowing full well two things: 1) The active ingredient (nicotine) was extracted from tobacco and 2) DEG is added to tobacco to keep it moist.

"...instead users were actually inhaling a nicotine-devoid toxic vapor of compounds like diethylene glycol or nitrosamines, a family of cancer-causing nitrogen compounds."

Now, the author of this piece is starting to sound like one of FDA's PR hacks. We have already covered the issue of DEG. Now, on to the nitrosamines. Again, the nicotine in the cartridge is extracted from tobacco, and these were "tobacco-specific nitrosamines." I invite the author to access the FDA test report look up the quantity of nitorisamines detected, expressed as nanograms per gram (ng/g). He will be unable to find this data, because FDA chose to leave a quantitative anlaysis out of its toxicology report -- a glaring scientific error. We know, however, from the test report issued by Health New Zealand that the quantity of nitrosamines in a "high nicotine" cartridge is 8 ng/g -- which is the same quantity you find in FDA-approved nicotine products. Surprise!

Why did FDA fail to mention this? In a word, "Spin". FDA was asked to make electronic cigarettes go away, and this was their way of getting the job done.

Even more interesting is the fact that most of those 8 nanograms don't even make it into the vapor. Soterra, one of the companies victimized by the FDA's illegal product seizure, hired an FDA-approved testing laboratory. That testing revealed that only one nitrosamine makes it into the vapor in an extremely minute quantity, and that one is not carcinogenic .

To put all of this into perspective, a day's supply of tobacco cigarettes delivers from 5,500 to 11,000 ng/g of nitrosamines. So which daily dose of nitrosamines do you believe is more likely to cause cancer, eh?




Gotta man up and do it cold turkey...
By Roffles on 2/10/2010 10:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Cigarettes are mysterious. I smoked for about 10 years, and at about the 5th year I was ready to quit but helplessly addicted. I must have tried once a year to make it 5 unsuccessful attempts. No placebo or alternative method of nicotine intake was going to work. Then one day I just quit out of the blue and it stuck. I did go thru some hell for a while, but for some reason I was willing to deal with the torture this time. It really is mysterious. My only thought is that I've learned to cope with stress and distress better with age and so the pains of nicotine withdrawal weren't as unpleasant as before.

But I know there are people out there with neurotic/addictive/compulsive personalities who have woven cigarettes deeply into the fabric of their lives. Those are the people who eventually get sick and become the statistic.

I'm no scientist and I know of no studies, but I also think that if cigarettes were completely outlawed, our obesity and alcoholism rates would increase as people look for different ways to pacify their compulsions.




By icanhascpu on 2/12/2010 4:48:17 AM , Rating: 1
Cold Turkey isnt 'manning up'. Not being sucked into it in the first place is. You're a pussy either way. Move on or enjoy slow death like everyone else.


I use electronic cigarettes
By marsbound2024 on 2/10/2010 1:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
I have been rather pleased with my electronic cigarettes and remain quite skeptical of the study. Of course smoking has a psychological--and perhaps physical--addiction, I feel that using electronic cigarettes has virtually replaced any need or want of smoking regular cigarettes. I get the same satisfaction. One thing I do want to add is this:

A user of e-cigs puts the nicotine solution into the filter (cartridge) and the atomizer vaporizes it and it is thus inhaled. Where does the nicotine go if not through the vapor and into the lungs? It doesn't disappear.




oops
By HDBanger on 2/10/2010 1:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Meant to say if you haven't tried them and you are saying they don't work, your ignorant. sorry.




By bohrd on 2/10/2010 3:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
It makes no sense, if they are willing to bad a "drug" because it is bad for you as it contains harmful chemicals, why aren't cigarettes banned as well? Smoking tobacco has a tonne of chemicals that are carcinogenic. It has also been shown that smoking in front of other people, smoking during pregnancy, and the residue of smoking are all very unhealthy.

I am not saying we should ban cigarettes but there is a clear hypocrisy here.




b.s.
By icaptmorgan on 2/11/2010 12:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ive been useing Greennicotine for months and i dont ever crave a cigarette and can definately feel the nicotine. I want to know what brand they were using




By Beavermatic on 2/11/2010 7:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
...as if the FDA is insinuating the idea that they dont want people to switch to extremely far less dangerous e-cig. I mean come on, its a health-hazard reduction tool, even safer than swedish (and now americanized) snus.

Like this report slaps a big label on the side of e-cigs that says "this product is not a safe alternative to smoking... and doesnt deliver the nicotine, so go back to your old smokes".

I'd be worried they are truly suggesting for people to return to standard cigarettes, as it seems like a conspiray either to keep hording from taxes from the legal cash crop, or as a conspiracy to keep people smoking real cigarettes for more deaths, aka population control.




By ptwylie on 2/11/2010 8:06:32 AM , Rating: 2
I find the scope and the breadth of the comments being posted very enlightening and shows that more education needs to be carried out by the producers of smokeless cigarettes.

The electronic cigarette should not be marketed as a cessation device this is what has set the alarm bells off with the FDA. No stringent testing has been carried to make qualified claims.

Are they safe, you bet at least they are an alternative to the combustible. Nicotine delivery devices and devices that delivery http://alternativecigarettes.org/information simulated nicotine are much more beneficial than just an aid to quit smoking.

Perhaps, you enjoy smoking tobacco but just don't like the inconveniences associated with smoking eg. in the workplace, restaurants etc. all these devises work because they have no noxious odours. Remember, if you are quitting smoking consult with your physician nicotine addiction is very hard to quit and support is needed.

quote:
The best cigarette is no cigarette




And the winner is...
By RivuxGamma on 2/11/2010 9:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, just look at who brought us this wonderfully useful article that's free from critical thinking to the point where is spawns a large discussion.

None other than the venerable Jason Mick.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki