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

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? :)


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














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