The FDA's War On E-Cigarettes Will Kill People

[BoyintheMachine]

The FDA recently announced that it will begin to implement regulations on e-cigarettes. The new proposed regulations will go into effect in two years barring any major opposition. It may surprise you to learn that these regulations will end up killing people. It may also surprise you that Big Tobacco has been lobbying the FDA for these regulations for several years now.

Most of the FDA's proposed regulations are positive. For example, we need warning labels on bottles of ejuice. We need child-proof caps on bottles of ejuice. Minors should not be allowed to purchase e-cigs. However, there is one regulation that will lead to human deaths if it is implemented. That proposed regulation is the requiring of an expensive application process for every single different model of e-cigarette on the market as well as for each and every flavor of ejuice. What this means is that sellers of e-cigarettes will have to pay huge sums of money simply to file an application with the FDA. The FDA will then make a decision on whether or not they want to allow such products to be sold. My local vape shop estimates that it will cost them 340 million dollars just to stay in business if this regulation is implemented. They would have to file thousands of applications to cover what they now sell, both in models of ecigs and flavors of ejuice.

What most may not be aware of is that this regulation will serve to destroy the market for all models of e-cigarettes that are not the "cig-a-likes", the kind that look like a normal cigarette. Right now, the market is dominated by little companies and Mom & Pop shops. This new regulation will wipe them all out. The only people who will be able to afford the new application process is the Big Tobacco companies. This is why they have lobbied the FDA to implement these regulations. In one little swoop of the pen, all of their competition will be destroyed.

With a market for e-cigs pretty much destroyed, the Big Tobacco companies will be given complete charge of e-cigarettes. These Big Tobacco companies are pretty much only interested in the cig-a-like models, as such is the cheapest route for them. This means that all the great variations and evolution of models will come to an end, only to be replaced with the very first form of e-cig, the cig-a-like, a form that most consumers are not satisfied using.

When the e-cig market is destroyed and all the new models and flavors disappear, people will once again return to cigarettes. This is how the FDA's proposed regulation will ultimately kill people because it will drive consumers right back to cigarettes.

We need your help. Please visit the following sites. It doesn't matter if you are a current vaper or just a friend of the vaping community. In this fight the FDA has teamed up with Big Tobacco to trick the public and destroy e-cigarettes.

CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

Visit the link and read the information at the above website. Go to the "call to action" section and learn how you can help. Also, contact your congressman and let them know that the FDA and Big Tobacco are teaming up to destroy e-cigarettes and that if these regulations are put into place that people will die.

Also, if you are currently in the medical field there is more that you can do. There is much anti-e-cig propaganda swirling in the media, with claims that e-cigs are dangerous and unsafe. In reality, we know that most doctors support e-cigs and would rather people use e-cigs over tobacco products. However, the public is falsely led to believe that the medical community does not support or approve of e-cigs. If you are in the medical community you can let the FDA know they are wrong about e-cigs. If you are in the medical community, please visit the site below:

Regulations.gov

While there, enter the following docket number:

FDA-2014-N-0189

Leave your comment addressing the following:

In your experience....

1. Are electronic cigarettes useful to help patients quit smoking?

2. Does a switch from smoking to electronic cigarettes result in a health gain?

3. Does use of electronic cigarettes result in adverse health effects?

The deadline to add your commentary is July 9, 2014.

E-cigarette users, called "vapers", as well as friends of the vaping community can also leave public comments for the FDA.


*****NOTE: If you come across an online petition about this development do not sign it. Most of these petitions are created by people who can't spell properly and who can't construct grammatically sound sentences and paragraphs and should not be representing the vaping community. Please join with CASAA and let CASAA fight this battle.


FYI: I smoked a pack a day, or more if I went out, for 20 years. I quit from e-cigs. I haven't had a cigarette in well over a year now. I never intended to quit smoking. The only thing I wanted to do was decrease my smoking to the level of one or two cigarettes a day. However, that never happened. When my Uncle gave me a disposable e-cig and I tried it, I automatically knew that I would quit smoking. A couple of weeks later my Grandmother died of COPD and a stroke, due to 50+ years of smoking. When I heard the news I went outside and smoked my last cigarette. I then walked inside and threw away the remaining 6 packs of Marlboro Lights I had left and transitioned right then and there. I smoked my last cigarette of my life at 11:53 PM on April 8, 2013. I've been smoke-free ever sense.

If you are a current smoker, please consider switching to e-cigs. You are addicted to nicotine, not to cancer-causing tar. The right e-cig model and strength/flavor of ejuice will completely satisfy you. Not to mention that you won't reek of cigarettes, that you don't have to stand outside in the heat, cold, or pouring rain, that you don't have to worry about yellow teeth and yellow fingers, and that you can wake up each morning bright and refreshed without having to cough up a lung. You really have no excuse not to transition. Did I mention the flavors are fantastic? I'm currently vaping chocolate mint as I type this.

 

[boomerang]

This may be a topic on which we are in at least partial agreement.

Vaping shops are popping up in my neighborhood like mushrooms. I have no desire to try vaping myself. But it seems obvious that quite a few people are, dare I say it, enjoying this practice.

The centrally pertinent question is not whether E-cigs help smokers quit traditional tobacco. It is not whether E-Cigs are a 'gateway' for tobacco products. I personally place the whole 'gateway' concept in the same category as "The War On ___" mentality. Some choices should be personal.

The real issue is possible long term medical risk from vaping, as balanced against the enjoyment people receive from it. I haven't done my homework on medical effects of vaping. Although given the mindset and media of 21st century America, I would choose my sources very carefully. The spirit of Carrie Nation lives on.

Assuming E-cigs are statistically no more dangerous than junk food or motorcycle riding, I see no reason to outlaw them. A realistic role for federal agencies would, in that case, be insuring purity of the product itself.

Again, I have not combed documentation re long term effects of vaping on the body. Do we even have valid research ? Don't automatically assume vaping is addictive. It may or may not be. RJ Reynolds spent a lot of lab time and money making their cigarettes addictive. Cigars and pipes are not, and all contain nicotine.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

This may be a topic on which we are in at least partial agreement.

Vaping shops are popping up in my neighborhood like mushrooms. I have no desire to try vaping myself. But it seems obvious that quite a few people are, dare I say it, enjoying this practice.

The centrally pertinent question is not whether E-cigs help smokers quit traditional tobacco. It is not whether E-Cigs are a 'gateway' for tobacco products. I personally place the whole 'gateway' concept in the same category as "The War On ___" mentality. Some choices should be personal.

The real issue is possible long term medical risk from vaping, as balanced against the enjoyment people receive from it. I haven't done my homework on medical effects of vaping. Although given the mindset and media of 21st century America, I would choose my sources very carefully. The spirit of Carrie Nation lives on.

Assuming E-cigs are statistically no more dangerous than junk food or motorcycle riding, I see no reason to outlaw them. A realistic role for federal agencies would, in that case, be insuring purity of the product itself.

Current non-smokers really should not be vaping. However, there is 0mg nicotine ejuice that they can use if they want to try out the experience of vaping.

An article out the other day indicates that data does support that e-cigs help smokers to quit tobacco.

Some Good News for the E-Cig Industry: Vaping Can Help Smokers Quit - Businessweek

I outright reject the claims that e-cigs are a gateway to Tobacco. That logic is baffling to me since the growth in e-cigs has been from people who want to escape Tobacco, not ease on into it.

We know that the basic ingredients in the ejuice are safe. They do contain carcinogens but only at the level comparable to processed meats and cheese.

As far as the medical effects of vaping, there really has not been any concern of disease associated with the long-term use of e-cigs, mostly because they haven't been on the market that long, having only appeared in 2004 in Asia and 2007 in the U.S.. However, we know the ingredients quite well and all ingredients are approved individually by the FDA for consumption. The ingredients in ejuice include a base of propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerine, both used in foods and medicines, food grade flavorings and nicotine. The exhale, or the vapor that is breathed out, is of course not smoke and is actually 99% water vapor and 1% unabsorbed flavorings and nicotine. There have been some alleged allergies to propylene glycol. However, most do not bear out under scrutiny as propylene glycol is found in so may food, medicine and even cosmetics that it is virtually impossible for someone to be allergic to the propylene glycol in ejuice but not the propylene glycol in artificial vanilla flavoring, or even cosmetics, for example.

I should also state, and should have stated in the opening post, that these are the only beginning proposed regulations. The FDA will be enacting other regulations down the line. We have an idea of what those are based on how the FDA has regulated the Tobacco industry. We know the FDA is against flavors. The FDA believes that all flavors exist to tempt children. Like no adults love flavors. So expect that in the future all flavors except tobacco and menthol will be outlawed. We also suspect the FDA will impose limits of nicotine strength. Some believe it's possible the FDA may decree no stronger than say a 5mg nicotine ejuice. Currently, one can purchase ejuice in ranges between 6mg to 30mg of nicotine. I also suspect the FDA will do away with ejuice completely and force consumers to buy pre-filled disposable cartridges. Not only will this increase the cost of vaping, making it more expensive than smoking, but it will also increase waste and drive current vapers back to smoking cigarettes.

For those who are brand new to elecronic cigarettes, here is a lecture from Dr. Lynne Dawkins on, Electronic Cigarettes: What We Know So Far.

 

[boomerang]

After scanning through the video, and at the risk of selective interpretation due to personal front loading, the info presented seems mostly to bear out my assertions about vaping.

-Nicotine in and of itself is relatively safe.
-Those addicted to tobacco often find E-cigarettes an inadequate substitute for their cravings. I see this as further evidence that nicotine is not solely the addictive component of tobacco.
-More research is needed to ascertain the safety of the non-nicotine constituents of E-cigarettes, such as propylene glycol and flavorings.
-Oversight and regulation is needed to insure correct strength and purity of ingredients.

If subsequent research shows vaping more dangerous than drinking alcohol or bicycle riding, then we should certainly outlaw it.

 

[Han]

My Five pence:

My belief is that all E-Ciggarettes and similar devices should be illegal.
I am a heavy smoker. When I started smoking, printing the dangers of smoking on the packaging of tobacco products was required by law, but their were numerous attempts to mislead people into continuing smoking, like for example "Marlboro lights" which in turn inspired "Silk cut ultra lows" etc these were Filter Cigarettes that had a reduced amount of tar and nicotine and in some cases extra holes in the Filter tip!
I was never under the illusion that smoking of any kind was not detrimental to health but I remember having a number of arguments with people who were under the impression that because they smoked lights or ultra lows etc they were at less risk, which I still believe to be wrong. Now when the marketing of cigarettes as low tar or light became illegal, the tobacco companies simply removed the "light" or "low" from the packaging.
The point I am trying to make is that nicotine is a poison and addictive at the same time......
Basically smoking is bad, but if you are going to do it at least smoke the best tobacco you can afford and enjoy it rather than putting your faith in something that can not possibly have gone through trials of any duration. In a nutshell I would not be suprised to learn in say 25 years or so that vaporising etc is actually far worse for you than "traditional" smoking, after all it seems to me that the same "players" (tobacco companies) are involved in E-Ciggarettes and it is an understatement of the grossest magnitude to say that these companies have a dubious record in terms of being open and honest with their "customers".

 

[BoyintheMachine]

My Five pence:

My belief is that all E-Ciggarettes and similar devices should be illegal.
I am a heavy smoker. When I started smoking, printing the dangers of smoking on the packaging of tobacco products was required by law, but their were numerous attempts to mislead people into continuing smoking, like for example "Marlboro lights" which in turn inspired "Silk cut ultra lows" etc these were Filter Cigarettes that had a reduced amount of tar and nicotine and in some cases extra holes in the Filter tip!
I was never under the illusion that smoking of any kind was not detrimental to health but I remember having a number of arguments with people who were under the impression that because they smoked lights or ultra lows etc they were at less risk, which I still believe to be wrong. Now when the marketing of cigarettes as low tar or light became illegal, the tobacco companies simply removed the "light" or "low" from the packaging.
The point I am trying to make is that nicotine is a poison and addictive at the same time......
Basically smoking is bad, but if you are going to do it at least smoke the best tobacco you can afford and enjoy it rather than putting your faith in something that can not possibly have gone through trials of any duration. In a nutshell I would not be suprised to learn in say 25 years or so that vaporising etc is actually far worse for you than "traditional" smoking, after all it seems to me that the same "players" (tobacco companies) are involved in E-Ciggarettes and it is an understatement of the grossest magnitude to say that these companies have a dubious record in terms of being open and honest with their "customers".

Cigarette smoke contains 4,000 chemicals, 43 of which are known to be carcinogenic and dozens more suspected of being carcinogenic, not to mention over 400 poisonous or dangerous chemicals such as carbon monoxide, arsenic, and cyanide.

The fluid in e-cigarettes contains propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin, food-grade flavorings and nicotine. All of these ingredients are approved by the FDA. When compared side to side, e-cigarettes are far, far, far, less dangerous than traditional cigarettes.

I'm glad that you were willing to publicly share this opinion because there are many people who would agree with you. It's important that we educate people because the problem is faulty perceptions that smoking tobacco and vaping e-cigarettes pose the same risks and this simply is not true. Smoking any form of tobacco is the most dangerous form of tobacco use. Smokeless tobacco only poses minimal risk. E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco of any form and the health risks of using e-cigarettes are practically nonexistent. The carcinogens in tobacco smoke are through the roof. The carcinogens in e-cigarettes are comparable to processed meats and cheese. Eat a hot dog and you've just consumed a similar amount of carcinogens as in e-cigarettes. So the risk is not zero, it's just so freaking low that it makes no sense to oppose it.

Getting current smokers to switch to e-cigarettes will save lives.

 

[hecticXx]

and so is the way of the US government,
nobody stands a chance

 

[hecticXx]

the united states government will do whatever the money makers want them to do. gone are the days of justice and liberty. if its a cash cow, the us gov't will put its grubby little fingers in there somewhere and squeeze it for all its worth. but what can you expect, its an economy. gov't just needs to stay out of it.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

After scanning through the video, and at the risk of selective interpretation due to personal front loading, the info presented seems mostly to bear out my assertions about vaping.

-Nicotine in and of itself is relatively safe.
-Those addicted to tobacco often find E-cigarettes an inadequate substitute for their cravings. I see this as further evidence that nicotine is not solely the addictive component of tobacco.
-More research is needed to ascertain the safety of the non-nicotine constituents of E-cigarettes, such as propylene glycol and flavorings.
-Oversight and regulation is needed to insure correct strength and purity of ingredients.

If subsequent research shows vaping more dangerous than drinking alcohol or bicycle riding, then we should certainly outlaw it.

1. Yes. Nicotine is relatively safe, meaning that it itself does not cause cancer. It might create a slight raise in blood pressure but no more than say caffeine does.

2. I would argue against that. Dr. Dawkins specifically says in studies they are shown to moderately ease cravings. However, it all depends on how heavily the person vapes. She says that in studies a person who vapes 20 times or more a day is more successful in quitting than those that do not. So in other words, when craving hits then hit the ecig and not a cigarette. And that's exactly how I transitioned. I vape every single time I have the urge to and do not wait. It's not like in a cigarette where I smoke one every one or two hours. I can vape any time, all day long, and that is what I found is most satisfying and what killed any cravings to smoke a cigarette.

3. Only in regards to breathing them. All of the ingredients themselves have already been found to be safe for consumption by the FDA. You are currently ingesting propylene glycol in a wide variety of products, for example.

4. Dr. Dawkins specifically says not to the point where it either increases the price of ecigs or makes them unavailable or non-satisfying. She specifically says that if regulations drive people back to cigarettes then it would rule out any benefit of regulation to begin with. She specifically also mentioned how regulation can play into the hands of Big Tobacco.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

the united states government will do whatever the money makers want them to do. gone are the days of justice and liberty. if its a cash cow, the us gov't will put its grubby little fingers in there somewhere and squeeze it for all its worth. but what can you expect, its an economy. gov't just needs to stay out of it.

I agree. I'm really tired of this attitude that "Big Daddy" is going to take care of us.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

My Five pence:

My belief is that all E-Ciggarettes and similar devices should be illegal.
I am a heavy smoker. When I started smoking, printing the dangers of smoking on the packaging of tobacco products was required by law, but their were numerous attempts to mislead people into continuing smoking, like for example "Marlboro lights" which in turn inspired "Silk cut ultra lows" etc these were Filter Cigarettes that had a reduced amount of tar and nicotine and in some cases extra holes in the Filter tip!
I was never under the illusion that smoking of any kind was not detrimental to health but I remember having a number of arguments with people who were under the impression that because they smoked lights or ultra lows etc they were at less risk, which I still believe to be wrong. Now when the marketing of cigarettes as low tar or light became illegal, the tobacco companies simply removed the "light" or "low" from the packaging.
The point I am trying to make is that nicotine is a poison and addictive at the same time......
Basically smoking is bad, but if you are going to do it at least smoke the best tobacco you can afford and enjoy it rather than putting your faith in something that can not possibly have gone through trials of any duration. In a nutshell I would not be suprised to learn in say 25 years or so that vaporising etc is actually far worse for you than "traditional" smoking, after all it seems to me that the same "players" (tobacco companies) are involved in E-Ciggarettes and it is an understatement of the grossest magnitude to say that these companies have a dubious record in terms of being open and honest with their "customers".

Sorry Harry but I think you are totally wrong. Every piece of evidence I've seen says that the very few chemicals in E-cigs are harmless. The flavouring is usually standard food flavouring (which has already been tested and approved for consumption), then you have the main ingredient which is either glycerine and propylene glycol and of course nicotine. Nicotine is not what causes all the smoking illnesses. It is indeed the addictive component but addictive is not the same as a carcinogen.

If there was some kind of burning involved, I could imagine there being possibly some unhealthy chemicals produced but that is not what happens. The liquid is heated until it vapourises, no more. That is completely different to burning.

I am 40 years old and probably smoked regularly since I was 20. In this time I stopped for about 3 years with the aid of a non-smoking girlfriend but when that ended, so did the stopping! Anyway, I started using e-cigs about 4 1/2 years ago and I am very proud that I have started at least 6 people on them, and with that their total cessation of smoking. It is very self-evident when you switch to e-cigs that your body is at the very least, far less troubled. Any 'smokers cough' I ever had, was gone in a few weeks and nowadays I find I cannot expectorate even if I try (cough crap up). I no longer stink of cigarettes and neither does my apartment. I don't have yellowing fingers and my lungs are infinitely better (and no, you do not need a doctor to tell you this, it's plainly obvious).
Also it is so much cheaper (the real reason it'll end up being taxed is that governments do not want to lose all the tobacco taxes).

I am proud that my 67 year old aunt, who was never, ever able to quit a life of smoking, now enjoys vaping and her whole family are reaping the benefits. I really do think I may have at least lengthened her life.

But finally Han, why don't you just support the banning of cigarettes totally? There are zero benefits and many harms so why just not ban it all?

Frankly I don't want any government or any person or body to INTERFERE with what I put in my own body. I'm not hurting others and I don't vape where it's not wanted etc. If any ban is tried here, I'll simply order from countries where they have some common sense.

 

[dyingsun]

I honestly considered switching to the devices, but one blowing up in your face doesn't seem all too healthy either. Guess I keep on rolling.

 

[Han]

Thank you for your responses, I have to admit that my first post was faulty due to my ignorance as to the mechanics of "vaping". I usually try to stick to talking about things I feel I have some knowledge about, however in the case of E-Ciggarettes and vaping I have intentionally stayed away from learning anything about them because my gut instinct was and still is that they are "dangerous". I am sure that I sound like a conspiracy theorist but I find it very hard to let go of the knowledge I have regarding the "history" of the tobacco trade and the practices of the companies that trade it. Great Britain ran its empire on addiction, that is to say that that some of the most lucrative commodities were by their very nature addictive, resulting in an ever increasing demand. Here are a few examples Tea, Coffee, Sugar, Tobacco, Opium. I will admit that was long in the past, however there is some good evidence to show that the dangers of smoking tobacco were understood by the 1950s yet the major tobacco companies did their utmost to suppress the idea, and guess what they introduced Filter cigarettes as a "safer" alternative, fast forward to the 1970s and due to further research "Light" cigarettes are introduced, then in the late 2000s "Light Cigarettes" were banned and lo and behold Vaping is the next "safer alternative". I actually hope that I am totally wrong and that the tobacco companies have broken the pattern and are being totally honest and above board as regards vaping and its dangers, but even they can not know what effect long term use of voporisers will have because they are new, that is to say you can not predict the result of a 25 year study after 5 years. As I said before I hope I am wrong, but for now I will stick to the devil I know.

 

[Han]

the following is taken from the British Medical Association website*:
Safety and efficacy
A 2008 review by the World Health Organization (WHO) does not exclude the possibility that the ecigarette
could be useful as a smoking cessation aid, but concluded that no rigorous, peer-reviewed
studies have been conducted showing that the e-cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement
therapy.16 There is evidence that e-cigarette products are highly variable in the efficacy of their
vaporisation of nicotine,b,17 and that the labelling of nicotine levels may be inconsistent and misleading.18
An analysis of the total level of nicotine generated by e-cigarettes which vaporise nicotine effectively
found that the amount inhaled from 15 puffs was lower compared with smoking a conventional
cigarette.b In 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released results of an analysis
of some e-cigarette products.18 The analysis found that the e-cigarette cartridges contained carcinogens
and toxic chemicals. Analysis of two leading brands revealed:
• diethylene glycol (a toxic chemical) in one cartridge at approximately 1 per cent
a The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing guidance on ‘Tobacco: harm
reduction approaches for smoking’. The BMA supports the development of a tobacco-free harm reduction approach
as a part of a structured programme leading to permanent smoking cessation, focusing on the use of licensed and
regulated pure nicotine products.
b This study analysed sixteen e-cigarette brands (based on their popularity in the Polish, UK and US markets) – the
total level of nicotine in vapor generated by 20 series of 15 puffs varied from 0.5 to 15.4 mg. Most of the analysed ecigarettes
effectively delivered nicotine during the first 150-180 puffs. On an average, 50- 60 per cent of nicotine
from a cartridge was vaporised.
4
• tobacco-specific nitrosamines (which are human carcinogens) in half of the samples
• tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans (anabasine, myosmine, and ßnicotyrine)
in a majority of the samples.18
The tests also suggested that quality control was inconsistent or non-existent:
• cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff
• one high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice the amount of nicotine compared to a nicotine
inhalation product approved by the FDA.18
The Trading Standards Institute and others have stated that safety concerns have come to light around
some brands of e-cigarettes, including electrical safety, the need for proper labelling, and the provision of
child resistant packaging.14,19



*((source))https://bma.org.uk/-/media/.../tobaccoecigarettespublicplaces_jan2013.pdf

 

[BoyintheMachine]

I honestly considered switching to the devices, but one blowing up in your face doesn't seem all too healthy either. Guess I keep on rolling.

The few, and I mean very few, devices that have exploded have been due to human error, as in the person leaves them charging for too long, talking hours here. One guy I heard about left his e-cigarette charging over the weekend and went to stay with his girlfriend. Of course it exploded and burned down his house.

Also, this is only a problem with cheap models. The better models have switch off devices installed that stops overcharging when the battery is fully charged. That's the kind I use and recommend.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Thank you for your responses, I have to admit that my first post was faulty due to my ignorance as to the mechanics of "vaping". I usually try to stick to talking about things I feel I have some knowledge about, however in the case of E-Ciggarettes and vaping I have intentionally stayed away from learning anything about them because my gut instinct was and still is that they are "dangerous". I am sure that I sound like a conspiracy theorist but I find it very hard to let go of the knowledge I have regarding the "history" of the tobacco trade and the practices of the companies that trade it. Great Britain ran its empire on addiction, that is to say that that some of the most lucrative commodities were by their very nature addictive, resulting in an ever increasing demand. Here are a few examples Tea, Coffee, Sugar, Tobacco, Opium. I will admit that was long in the past, however there is some good evidence to show that the dangers of smoking tobacco were understood by the 1950s yet the major tobacco companies did their utmost to suppress the idea, and guess what they introduced Filter cigarettes as a "safer" alternative, fast forward to the 1970s and due to further research "Light" cigarettes are introduced, then in the late 2000s "Light Cigarettes" were banned and lo and behold Vaping is the next "safer alternative". I actually hope that I am totally wrong and that the tobacco companies have broken the pattern and are being totally honest and above board as regards vaping and its dangers, but even they can not know what effect long term use of voporisers will have because they are new, that is to say you can not predict the result of a 25 year study after 5 years. As I said before I hope I am wrong, but for now I will stick to the devil I know.

Han, the great thing about vaping and ecigs is that currently Big Tobacco is not in control of it. The market is dominated by small companies and Mom & Pop shops. However, if the FDA's regulations are put into place then control over ecigs will be handed to Big Tobacco. Right now Big Tobacco has tried to get into the market but are failing because they are putting out crappy cig-a-like devices that very few consumers are satisfied using. Big Tobacco currently simply can't compete and this is why they've been lobbying the FDA for these regulations because they know it will destroy the competition.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

the following is taken from the British Medical Association website*:
Safety and efficacy
A 2008 review by the World Health Organization (WHO) does not exclude the possibility that the ecigarette
could be useful as a smoking cessation aid, but concluded that no rigorous, peer-reviewed
studies have been conducted showing that the e-cigarette is a safe and effective nicotine replacement
therapy.16 There is evidence that e-cigarette products are highly variable in the efficacy of their
vaporisation of nicotine,b,17 and that the labelling of nicotine levels may be inconsistent and misleading.18
An analysis of the total level of nicotine generated by e-cigarettes which vaporise nicotine effectively
found that the amount inhaled from 15 puffs was lower compared with smoking a conventional
cigarette.b In 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released results of an analysis
of some e-cigarette products.18 The analysis found that the e-cigarette cartridges contained carcinogens
and toxic chemicals. Analysis of two leading brands revealed:
• diethylene glycol (a toxic chemical) in one cartridge at approximately 1 per cent
a The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing guidance on ‘Tobacco: harm
reduction approaches for smoking’. The BMA supports the development of a tobacco-free harm reduction approach
as a part of a structured programme leading to permanent smoking cessation, focusing on the use of licensed and
regulated pure nicotine products.
b This study analysed sixteen e-cigarette brands (based on their popularity in the Polish, UK and US markets) – the
total level of nicotine in vapor generated by 20 series of 15 puffs varied from 0.5 to 15.4 mg. Most of the analysed ecigarettes
effectively delivered nicotine during the first 150-180 puffs. On an average, 50- 60 per cent of nicotine
from a cartridge was vaporised.
4
• tobacco-specific nitrosamines (which are human carcinogens) in half of the samples
• tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans (anabasine, myosmine, and ßnicotyrine)
in a majority of the samples.18
The tests also suggested that quality control was inconsistent or non-existent:
• cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff
• one high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice the amount of nicotine compared to a nicotine
inhalation product approved by the FDA.18
The Trading Standards Institute and others have stated that safety concerns have come to light around
some brands of e-cigarettes, including electrical safety, the need for proper labelling, and the provision of
child resistant packaging.14,19

*((source))https://bma.org.uk/-/media/.../tobaccoecigarettespublicplaces_jan2013.pdf

Han,

That was 2008, only one year after they reached the U.S. Most people had never even heard of ecigs back then. They really didn't get any publicity until starting in 2009. Also the diethylene glycol contamination came from tainted batches of vegetable glycerin and is not something that is included in the ejuice as an ingredient. That problem with diethylene glycol has been resolved. And also, just for the record, the diethylene glycol found was not in the toxic or dangerous range. Just so you know.

Also, as I mentioned prior in this thread, ecigs do contain carcinogens. However, what is not being properly explained is that the level is on par with processed meat and cheese. Anytime you eat a hot dog or a slice of cheese, you are consuming carcinogens called nitrosamines. These are a resut of the nitrates used in the processing of these products. However, the level of these nitrosamines is considered so low that they are not deemed dangerous to one's health. In fact, all the other NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapies), such as gum, patches, inhalers, etc., all contain similar levels of these carcinogens.

Remember Han, no one is claiming that ecigs are perfectly safe. We are claiming they are far, far, safer than smoking cigarettes. If you vape an ecig your risk of harm isn't zero percent. However, it's so low that it's really nothing to worry about or fret over. You, right now, are doing far more damage to your body from smoking cigarettes than I am from vaping. As I stated earlier, don't fall into the trap of thinking that cigarettes and e-cigarettes are similar in the health risks they pose or that e-cigs are even worse. Because they aren't. Not even close.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

For those who are into conspiracies:

The world's first e-cigarette was invented by an American in 1963. For some reason it was never manufactured. Some believe this is because back then a pack of cigarettes was a quarter or less in price and that nobody would be willing to pay the high prices of an electronic version. Others believe that Big Tobacco squashed it. I tend to think it was a bit of both the price and Big Tobacco squashing it.

Here's the original blue print:

Patent US3200819 - Smokeless non-tobacco cigarette - Google Patents

Just think of how many lives would have been saved if these were sold starting back in the 60s. An American would have also gotten the credit for it's invention.

 

[boomerang]

Others believe that Big Tobacco squashed it.

Not hard to believe at all. And I still maintain Big Tobacco succeeded in making cigarettes much more addictive than tobacco alone, . The "crack cocaine" of tobacco, if you will.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Not hard to believe at all. And I still maintain Big Tobacco succeeded in making cigarettes much more addictive than tobacco alone, . The "crack cocaine" of tobacco, if you will.

Agree. It's admitted they add extra nicotine to cigarette tobacco and they add chemicals such as ammonia to increase the absorption of nicotine in the lungs. They also add chemicals to help ease the irritating effect of the smoke itself. Also, it's now believed that cigarette smoke contains a chemical that opens the airways in the lungs. Many former smokers, myself included, complain of not being able to breathe and of struggling to do mundane tasks after quitting. This period only last for weeks or some months, mine lasted about 6 months, until it goes away. It's believed that this condition is caused by withdrawal of that chemical. Sadly, some people go right back to smoking when they experience this symptom instead of fighting through it. It only serves to mask the damage being done by smoking.