Posting in Technology
Just so you know that if you decide to addict yourself to these things today, the FDA may make you quit them in 2012. And that won't be easy.
It's called the e-cigarette. It's a battery-powered tube that mixes a nicotine cartridge with propylene glycol, delivering it in a controlled way while you suck on the end (as you would tobacco).
The cartridges come in different strengths, and can come in different flavors.
So why have they also been made in flavors like cookies-and-cream, strawberry and banana? This caused California attorney general (and gubernatorial candidate) Jerry Brown to run some of them out of that state this week.
On the federal level, e-cigarettes exist in a nether world of deregulation. Right now nicotine lozenges and patches are available over-the-counter, although they're regulated as drugs.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law last year, gives the FDA three years to think about what to do, not only about e-cigarettes, but lozenges and patches and all the rest. The UK is moving toward an outright ban on e-cigs.
Nicotine is the active ingredient in tobacco, and is highly addictive. Anti-smoking activists call it as addictive as crack. (This is not news.) Imagine if someone were trying to sell your kids banana-flavored heroin in a vial they could suck (instead of having to chase the dragon), and you get some idea of how anti-smoking activists think about e-cigarettes.
Yet e-cigs are easier to buy online than textbooks. There are slick-looking reviews (the picture above comes from one), distributors call them "a healthier alternative," and the makers brag you can use them anywhere.
The Google has 12.9 million links to e-cigarettes, and the first of those links that's negative, an FDA list of concerns, was the 51st I found in a search just now. (There's a video from that link above.) To all intents and purposes the market for these things is wide-open.
The reason you don't have versions of this technology for cocaine, heroin or THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is because those particular substances are banned as dangerous drugs. Nicotine is just as dangerous, but because the tobacco industry has fought so hard in Washington for so long it's not yet treated that way.
Just so you know that if you decide to addict yourself to these things today, the FDA may make you quit them in 2012. And that won't be easy.
Aug 5, 2010
It's not my very first time to visit this blog; Iâm visiting this daily and acquire superb info from here day by day.
I think that e-cigarettes was a verry good idea. many peolpes quited smoking because of them. I,m buying my e cigs here: [url=http://www.cygaleria.pl/category/e-papierosy]papierosy elektroniczne[/url]
this is one of the worst pieces of journalism out there and believe me you have got to be stupid to be a part of that..smart planet huh thats a laugh..you should be totally embarrased by the drivel you have written ...did you even for a minute consider that e-cigs are changing the way people smoke or get nicotine ? have you even got a clue on the topic you so blatantly plagurised?i have first hand experience of e cigarettes and i can state that my health has improved no end from the time i switched from smoking to vaping i think you should seriously consider your journalistic view and rewrite after researching the subject properly because at the moment you are the laughing stock of smart planet..bit of news for you..i'm 63 years of age..i smoked a pack or more for 50 years and the effects where beginning to show..i have always been a fit person but as you get older and smoke you do begin to tire..i was lethargic, wheezing in bed at night..coughing in the morning all down to cigarettes i tried everything the doctor could throw at me in an effort to stop smoking..i tried vaping as a last ditch effort and guess what after just a month i can breath better ,wheezing has stopped,cough is almost gone and i have tons of energy even my golf handicap has gone down..now isnt that a smack in the face..do proper research instead of supporting propaganda it will do your credibility no end of good ..by all the comments on your post you will notice that so many people cant be wrong or just flamers this is too serious a subject to make telling propaganda out of.. e- cigarettes are changing the lives of so many people around the world they should be given a chance to finally rid people of smoking..even people like myself who enjoy vaping are so much healthier..its a no brainer..we vape because we want to hell i enjoy it more than i ever did smoking..no second hand smoke..whats not to like..
Researchers saw changes in the lung function of healthy smokers who puffed on an e-cigarette for just five minutes. Thanks, Itâs good to share Your views... so hopefully other people can avoid them! - http://www.ws6.org/
You call e-cigarettes (I prefer to say personal vaporizers, cause that's what they are) are a scam. Do they not deliver the nicotine they promise? Scam is a strong word. I would be very sure before you use it. It is an emotionally charged word meaning a cheat. So I would like to know how these companies are cheating consumers. Let's say you think these companies are saying these devices are safe. They aren't. They are saying they're safer. And they are. No harmful smoke. 5 ingredients in the liquid: water, propyl glycol(declared generally safe by the FDA), vegetable glycerine (also declared safe), flavoring (not sure about what they are), and nicotine. Granted nicotine isn't safe which is why they don't say they're safe, merely safer. Anti-freeze in e-liquid? In 2009, the FDA tested 18 vials of e-liquid from 2 companies. They found minute amounts of diethylene glycol *in 1 vial* of 18. the concentration wias less than 1%. Granted, this shouldn't have been in there at all, but it was 1 vial. Why don't we ban tylenol vecause 1 lot of it was tainted intentionially? And are we sure that 1 vial was tainted from the production facility? We don't know where it had been. Scientific study has a chain of evidence that requires close monitoring. I'm wondering if this evidence chain is intact. I'm sorry sir, but with respect, your statement that this product is a scam is not bearing scrutiny. I see no evidence that it is in any way mis-informing potential customers.
Hey I am an ex smoker, used to smoke 20 cigarettes a day Now I vaporise electronic cigarettes exclusively, and can BREATH!!!
well non intentionally deleted a lot originally had written. I will say this much dude deceives you. Scientist of America already came forth saying non cancer giving and better alternative and even possibility of being a smoke sensation product. I am multiple disabilities hypnotherapy , supplements anything did not work not enough focus ability mind wise. With out these I would loose my mind. High anxiety , I am high bipolar depression , high obsessive compulsive disorder , attention deficient disorder. Learning challenged and even read online a state mentioning its worry because $8000 of its funds for stopping smoking programs funding by government on their own expenses oh what to do what to do their worry. It boils down to a fear of no to less smokers and getting use to it . Can his our others minds concept it , get use to it. Oh but where would the money support go because tobacco funds supported so many things. A real joke and than some this is. NO scientific backup all personal mental belief concept made to look fancy smooth talking and convincing. People like this are scared oh but they have been so use to the way the world is limited on open ability to changes in the world if become to radical. It is like this they live in a nut shell of their own person self created non factual beliefs and personal desires in this world the way they see it and they way they wish it to stay. The spin off is they do a 360 complete opposite spin off trying to sound clever intelligent and just hope human people across the world will some how if their lucky buy into it. Not putting a lot of thought. Because it is probably evaluated most work not enough time , minding thinking ability working hard job , busy and etc. That only school certain areas and like jobs hard mind and working ability is put into. So they probably believe they can slip under the radar no real think above and beyond people like myself here. I know this is probably a little forward and blunt but it's the best for now how can express myself truly honestly and being myself gathering clarity in my point making. Works well for some others not. Please I ask Please read the acknowledge and what wrote on petition on white housing site for ecigs here is the link below vote for a better non polluted as much world it won't take away all pollution's I will be honest there but a step is better than no step taken at all. Life the world efforts and a better world all take good time unfortunately but steps are definitely good and taking stands against those who are stubborn , stuck in their personal thought process and belief system. Link: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prevent-fda-regulating-or-banning-sale-and-use-electronic-cigarettes-accessories-and-associated/RQLBYRsd
Have been a Smart planet reader now for many years...I am seriously disappointed in this article. there are several problems. 1. proving Nicotine. On its own is actually a health risk. It not heroin, I'd argue its more like coffee/caffeine.. 2. Showing the scam marketing BS ecigs....are actually the real Market. As far as I am concerned, this was an Utter fail for science, journalism and for "smart"
In light of recent research I think its high time we had an update or retraction to this article. E-cig activists do themselves no favor by claiming "no harm", however harm is a relative thing, and consistent with the principles of harm-reduction, the jury seems to be in that e-cigarettes provide a safer (but not entirely safe) alternative to smokers who just cant quit. Now some smokers do indeed quit by virtue of abstainance, however there are actually physiological differences in the way pleasure centers of some smokers react to nicotine that make many smokers almost incapable of quitting. Furthermore, whilst pharmacutical approaches like Chantix and Zyban do help some smokers, these are still fairly hit and miss affairs with many people finding the side effects of use unbearable (Both can induce psychotic or neurotic reactions in some users) Simply abandoning these people to a life of tobacco smoking and the resulting diseases is actually a grossly irresponsible move on the behalf of healthcare policy makers. The core of the issue is that most of the harm from emphysema and cancer comes from burnt smoke (Notably benzene ring compounds) in tobacco cigarettes. Nicotine whilst highly addictive has a greatly reduced harm profile, mostly centered around low level circulatory concerns similar to those around caffine. Theres no evidence that nicotine is cancer inducing, nor is it capable of inducing emphysema (which I suspect is mostly from inhaling superheated smoke laden with tar substances). Eliminate these two outcomes and you've mostly negated the harm profile of traditional smoking. For the most part nicotine is safe enough to pass FDA approval for harm-reduction products like nicotine inhalers (which have precisely the same ingredients as e-cigs, namely nicotine suspended in propylene glycol) , gum and patches. The problem with nicotine inhalers , is basically the things are awful, and distribute nicotine in a manner (Usually in the mouth) that tends to be unsatisfying enough to not provide proper prophylaxis against returning to the dreaded coffin-nails. For some , it'll work, but for most , its hardly effective. Nicotine gum can cause mouth irritation and again many smokers find it a frusturating method of quitting, and patches can cause skin irritation and in hotter climates simply do not work due to sweating. The electronic cigarette however exploits the low temperature steam conversion threshold of Propylene glycol to create a low temperature steam that the body absorbs more efficiently and provides a flavor and experience that smokers will tend to find much easier to transition to from conventional cancer sticks. Remember, the important part here is getting addicted smokers away from the ultra harmful tobacco cigarettes onto a nicotine delivery platfom that doesn't present the cancer and emphysema risks of tobacco. A number of studies recently confirm this, and the notable one to me is an ongoing series of studies from New Zealand researchers (Under the aegis of the australian/new-zealand clinical trials registry) that seems to recomend (although the trials havent reached completion yet, as I believe they are entering a second stage) smokers moving to electronic cigarettes as an entirely effective harm-reduction measure for "smokers unmotivated to quit". I don't have much to offer on the flavor issue, except to note that a regulated and sensible approach to regulated e-cig availability would be capable of providing a selected range of flavors targetted at adults with all the apropriate due dillegence in making sure the ingredience are up to scratch. For what its worth, as someone who started smoking at 14, it had nothing to do with flavor, but rather impressing the girl next door by being "bad". If they ever invent a time machine, I intend to return to the mid 1980s and kick 14yo me in the butt for such stupidity. But you know what? You used to be able to buy flavored cigarettes of the conventional variety (most notably "menthol" which is a minty flavor) and us kids hated them and prefered regular old lung-buster tobacco flavor. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of earlier commenters angry at your article. I'm a former journalist (who quit due to having atrocious grammar and spelling!) and I understand that the process of truth telling is limited by the available materials at hand. Your advocacy on behalf of our safety is actually appreciated, and I can only counsel that because so many of us have had our health and lifestyles so greatly improved by moving from conventional cigarettes to electronic nicotine devices, many are understandably emotional about moves that could force us back onto dangerous conventional cigarettes. I must apologize for those insulting you, most of us are capable of rational debate on the issue, but most rational debators shy away from website comments! Its the nature of the interwebs. However the landscape has changed somewhat in the past 2 years regarding the available scientific data on electronic cigarettes, and I advise taking a fresh look at the issue, and considering the opinions of scientists and ex cigarette (aka "analogs" or "coffin nails") smokers in your analysis. Looking forward to what you have to offer!
Propylene glycol is used in the hospital in nebulizers to deliver Albuterol to asthma patients, you really just write whatever comes to your head no research or thought put into your story.
Instead you would want people to smoke cigarettes that have 4000 additional chemicals, harmful smoke full of carcinogens. Many people have successfully quit smoking using these, and are recommended by many doctors M.D. like my cardiologist who said nicotine replacement is as safe as drinking coffee all day. Nicotine has been used experimental with some success treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson. Get your info straight you're a shame and so is this site.
You have absolutely no IDEA what you are talking about. Where are your sources. The only thing you have done here is lie. There is no substantial evidence with e-cigs because they have not been around long enough. Every single ingredient in e-cigs is FDA approved. QUIT LYING you have no credibility and hopefully no one listens to your BULLSH*T. Talk to the PHD's at Penn State who are actually doing research in this area, and have an Idea what they are talking about since they obviously are smarter than you.
Schpankenhorn says "and the first of those links thatâs negative, an FDA list of concerns, was the 51st I found in a search just now" MIGHT THAT HAVE BEEN A CLUE FOR YOU , SCHPANKENHORN ?
Thank God I just read this!!! I was about to make the switch from cigs to e-cigs....but since you claim they are like heroine, well I will stick to my chosen device! You probably saved my life tonight! So what's your thoughts on the electric car? Since you are obviously against evolutions to cleaner/healthier means, I suppose you would advise me to hold on to my old rust bucket instead of buying into the 'so called' benefits of solar energy. I agree! Don't worry Mr/Mrs Dana blatundoot...if they out law e-cigs, they'll all just go back to regular smokes again...and instead of vapor, we'll return to blowing carbon monoxide into you're nosy little faces. I don't get it...what did the e-cig ever do to you...you know to make you compare it to using heroine and crack? Are you an ex-heroine addict? Are you an ex-smoker? Why don't you people mind your own business...I'm sure if I looked deep enough into your lives I could find a million bad habits and probably some that could take years off your life! I hope you didn't make the switch to diet soda?! You hear what they replaced the sugar with right? You are all pathetic, get a life.
We got into the business way before it was popular and as someone who has personally used and sold them, we checked IDs on anyone that appeared under 30. Even just to try it, we checked IDs. After the flavors came out, I always used the cherry or bubblegum one because it had a better flavor than the original flavors. Also, I know of a lot that goes on behind the scenes-or that went on and it's a dirty world out there. You cannot trust some of these organizations.
It looks like I'm too late to enter my disgust with inept researching of subject matter, but none the less,,,I will. Everyone else has pretty much said it. I use and have been in the e-cig sales end of the business for nearly a year. I worked the Kiosk's, and sold elsewhere as well. NEVER in the many hunderds of sales have I either (a) had a child ask to buy one (one child did want to buy one for his smoking mother) ...or....(b) have I been asked by a non smoker to buy one (unless for another smoking individual). This fantasy attack by the author, (claiming "Conversation stimulation" to save face), and by FDA and Gov't entities is sickening. Since most truisms have been stated already. I'll end by saying the e-cig is doing more to relieve smokers from 4000 chemicals inhaled and bringing it down to only ~50, with 1 suspected (not proven) carcinogen , the nitrosamine. Bet the author has never even heard the term, but it's the one chemical the FDA harps on,,,,yet it is in all the pharma gums/patches/etc. I despise shoddy journalism on it's face and blame it for what is wrong in this country. Journalists not willing to do their "RESEARCH" before writing. So Sad
@Electricman#1 Ask for a raise, you are out doing yourself with the dedication you are showing to big tobacco and big pharmacy! BTW the ECF isn???t the only e-cig forum on the net.
ECF can't stand to hear anything negative that could cost loss of profits for them. The ECF is the single largest depository of unsubstantiated medical claims and misinformation regarding ecigs on the Internet. So much misinformation they needed a new site to promote it Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) a consumer group that was created and is currently funded by ECF and your friendly,neighborhood U.S. Electronic Cigarette Suppliers to do direct lobbying on their behalf.
My father-in-law just had surgery for a tracheotomy and feeding tube because he is about to undergo chemo for throat cancer. They also found "spots" on his lungs and will be further treated for lung cancer. From smoking. His is just one of endless dire concequences that smoking causes to people's lives. Government, Pharma and tobacco companies are killing people legally and without consequence to them, all for the $$. Do you really think there were would be so many people here routing for ecigs if they didn't work? Even if you sign up for a "free trial" crap ecig and pay out the butt for the refills, (which ARE a scam--but only for your money) it's still a MUCH smaller price to pay than paying with your life.
He we are again with an ill-informed morons speaking without an examination of facts whatsoever. Please see the links others have provided you and do some research before spouting such crap. Are you aware of how many lives are saved each year due to e-cigarettes? No? Then shut it.
HOW DARE YOU!!! I sat and watched my Brother in-law take his last breath. He was a heavy smoker. That moment I said to myself I will not allow myself to be in that same situation! I started an e-cig regiment. I have stopped smoking and my health as improved more so than you could understand. I made a choice to live healthier - not to put my family thru what I had to witness (first-hand) with my brother in-law. Sir - get off your High Horse and let people make their own decisions when it pertains to health!! You are a disgrace to objective journalism!
Are you honestly, seriously saying that nicotine is comparable to heroin or similar hard drugs? Have you bothered researching REAL cigarettes? Most people get addicted to the carcinogens in the real deal, not e-cigs. The TRUTH is this: nicotine, on its own--as is the case in electronic cigarettes--is as addictive as caffeine, and how much of THAT do you pour down your throat every morning? I don't smoke real or electronic cigarettes, but I hate when people assert things on the internet or elsewhere that are just plain false. To everyone out there concerned that they're inhaling the equivalent of heroin, sleep easy. And to everyone else who thinks the FDA should regulate e-cig and other nicotine-containing alternatives to control accidental sales to minors, how about you actually pay attention to your kids and take your credit cards away from them? It comes down to everything else the government tries to control: personal responsibility is the answer here, not even more government intrusion. You think e-cigs are bad? Check out the facts on your cup of espresso or Monster, buddy.
I love my electronic cigarette. I purchased it about 3 months ago from http://ecig.pk and have become completely free from tobacco. It satisfies my nicotine cravings and the physical addiction I have to actually smoking.
There's a far more cogent discussion that needs to be taking place, which hyperbole and vitriol on both sides is currently impeding. Do adults, after a consideration of the effects of partaking in a certain vice, have the right to decide of their own free will if they will partake of that vice? Can one legitimately make society better by limiting the free will of individuals to pursue things which bring them pleasure? Even our founding fathers, many of which would be considered extremely radical in their puritanical views, knew better than to mess with vice. Personally, I err on the side of caution, and choose to believe that any drug entering my body is likely to have problematic properties which may affect my health. I temper that, however, with the belief that I only have the right to make decisions for my own benefit. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are often touted as being our natural rights... but that isn't entirely accurate. Our natural rights are life, liberty, property, and health. The entire notion of which, relies around the assumption that I own my own body. If I own my own body, what is it any of your business what I do with it?
LOL! "nicotine is just as dangerous as cocaine, heroin, etc." ......REALLY?! LOL!!! Wow...... intelligent article! LOL!
Yes, I must add my two cents just because I can. I only form an opinion after reading all facts, both good and bad. With regards to e-cigarettes I have to say the FDA evidence is clear. e-cigarettes are no more harmful than their approved NTRs. Thanks FDA for giving me that peace of mind. I do appreciate it! Also, I live in the state of Pennsylvania. William T Godshall, executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania (A state government run anit-smoking organization) has this to say about e-cigarettes. "These e-cigarettes are at least 99.9 percent less deadly than cigarettes," he said. "Let's worry about the products that are actually killing people." Personally I will take the word of the head of the anit-smoking state organization over the lack of evidence provided by this article.
This Dana guy has the brain of a chimpanzee. I've never seen anything so ridiculous. Someone needs to get control of this chimp to stop him from influencing the poor web users who actually believe this rubbish. Dana, you should be ashamed of yourself.
This is ridiculous-- Caffeine is a highly reinforcing stimulant consumed everywhere by everyone, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, etc. Nicotine is just another highly reinforcing stimulant! I just don't get it. If e-cigs are banned, then caffeine should get the same treatment, but we all no it won't, because caffeine is so prevalent and socially acceptable. Also, if e-cigs are banned, that will provide an incentive for people to obtain nicotine the old-fashioned way, with life-threatening cigarettes. Is the tobacco industry behind the initiative to ban e-cigs? They certainly have an incentive to do everything they can to keep people off of harmless nicotine delivery and seeking lethal nicotine delivery. It will be very interesting to see how this new technology gets handled!
Out of 144 comments there were only 9 thumbs up recommendations for this article. I did not see a thumbs down button. All of this sounds much like a discussion about heaven and hell. Some people believe in both and some just believe there is only a heaven. Some don't believe at all. Dana, I do not agree with you but I respect your right to your opinion. I am so thankful to live in America where we can all exercise our right to voice our opinions. I am more inclined to have less government involvement in our lives but that's just me. If our goal is a smarter planet then we should not promote lies. Peace.
I just watched a History International program on tobacco ("Modern Marvels: Tobacco") which included a long segment on cigarette production. I was previously aware of the tremendous amount of additives in cigarettes but it was a revelation to see the process and purpose of the additions (Including "offal" swept up from the factory floor). It made it quite clear that, as a nicotine delivery system, cigarettes are an inefficient, adulterated and unconscionably dangerous method. I have also seen the ads for the e-cigarette/ They state clearly that, while some users have reported that e-cigs have enabled them to reduce and even quit tobacco consumption, that is not the intent or purpose. Given the choice of a cigarette or a device that delivers a measured dose of pure nicotine, the decision seems easy. I would choose the latter for myself, a loved one or even the millions of smokers that are strangers to me. Others have quite effectively rebutted the nonsense in this 'article,' so I will close with a personal expression of gratitude to Mr. Blankenhorn: I have been considering giving the e-cig a try but was hesitant because of doubts that it could actually deliver a sufficient amount of nicotine to assuage my craving. This article has reassured me on that point and I will be placing my order presently.
How about the smokers who want to, and have tried everything to quit. E-cigarettes have changed my life for the better, after 17 years of smoking. There is nothing I need more proof then the thousands of happy e-smokers who used to smoker cancer sticks and now enjoy e-cigarettes. You think the tobacco industry and drug companies have NOTHING to do with the goverments distaste on e-cigarettes? Read the top myths about the electronic cigarette: http://www.canadavapes.com/news/news-stories/myths-about-the-electronic-cigarette.html Howie Zee
Wow! I've never read any article that excited so many trolls with such anger. Opened a hornet's nest have we? Well done Dana. You must be grinning ear to ear as I am. What I'd like to know is who is behind the financing of these companies? Hmm. Could it be Big Baco? Or the big food companies (think chips)? I don't know. But I'm sure there are trolls ready to pounce on this one. I smoked 60 per day from 15 years of age till I hit 25. For the last 6 years of that phase I sat at my student then research desk16 hours a day, with no exercise regimen. The elevator to my apartment failed and so I walked up the stairs. I made it to the first landing and found I could hardly breathe. My doctor said I'd be dead in six months unless I stopped. I took nicobrevin gels (in 1976) for the prescribed time, and truly wanted to quit. I succeeded because I wanted to. So nobody can: 1) convince me that smoking is anywhere close to harmless; 2) tell me they can't stop - that's just a childish excuse to keep smoking; 3) say it's not addictive; 4) suggest that an 'alternative' is the solution when patches and the like can genuinely help people STOP smoking. E-cigs merely switch the habit to another form, in my opinion. Come on trolls, try to prove me wrong and show your commitment to hurting our kids and increasing our health care costs ..
04_srt- "I wasn't aware that tastebuds change the way we taste as we get older." Then you in fact are unaware. Our tatse buds do indeed change as we age. This is one of the major reasons that many children must be made to "eat their peas", for example. Also why Grandma may not know she has used too much salt. The same is true with the sense of smell as evidenced by many elderly women over using perfume. By the way, anyone who knows a lick about marketing is aware that products are sold according to a certain demographic. Products that are not likely to have a large audience in the future are discontinued. Are we to believe that the majority of American smokers prefer cotton candy flavored anything? C'mon. who do you think you are kidding? Sadly, I agree with Dr, Bill, that this will quickly become an apparatus for personal drug use. In fact I will go a step further and suggest that it already has been, and not excluding those who are responsible for it's wide spread use and delivery within the United States. Personally I think that many e- cigarette users are being duped by a pack of hoodlum drug users in order to force their own agenda on the American public. Duce 365 - Great you can quote Thomas Jefferson. Pethaps you should first read the rest of the story. I 'm pretty sure the old guy would give you a good swift kick in th A**. "Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. - also Thomas Jefferson. You all can call it what ever you like. This is indeed a free country. I will also call it what I like. You are a bunch of addicts trying to pretend that you are not. This my friends is typical addict behavior. You can say whatever you like in protest, frankly I don't give a damn! I have no respect for junkies!
Mr. Blankenhorn, I applaud you for sticking to your own opinions and ideals. Frankly, the rude and obnoxious attitude alone that I have witnessed from most of the people fighting for this e- cigarette, makes me hope they do not get it. They are like a bunch of spoiled children who when they do not get full agreement begin with the naming calling and finger pointing. It is in fact embarrassing behavior to witness in so called adults. I am especially amused by several posters, one of whom makes claims regarding wikipedia. FYI girly, most people do not put much stock in that site because it is user created...You know, the blind leading the blind. The others who compare caffeine to nicotine and disagree with the well known fact that nicotine in fact IS as addictive as heroin. FYI ladies and gentlemen, your good doctor Baron of youtube fame happens to be on the board of directors for the product he is defending. Do your own homework! With that said Mr. Blankenhorn, I commend you for an excellent job in writing this article. I also thank you for including many links to further information, as this is what a good journalist does. For those of you who think you know more than the writer, it is called sighting your sources. You can call me "Cold turkey", as I am a smoker who is quitting and will NEVER throw good money after bad for this loser, second rate, lie riddled, non cessation, fraud of a product. Sincerely, Cold Turkey
I'm a non smoker but my parents are both long term smokers so this article was of great interest to me. I have spent the last three days reading all the information from this blog on the subject. I really think you need to go back and re-look at all the evidence. I for one will be recommending the e-cigs to my parents (that I both love and care for) as a far safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. If nothing else I thank you for open both the debate and my eyes to the e-cig. David Taylor.
The reason governments don't like them, and come up with all kinds of lies and excuses is because they're NOT cigarettes, and will prevent you from buying the real cigarettes that they tax 7000%. If they don't control it, and tax it to the hilt, then it is baaaad and unsafe. Actually they are FAR safer than tobacco without the 4000 carcinogens, the tar, the smell, the second hand smoke, and the cost. And once you find a flavor you like, and get used to it, a tobacco cigarette taste like crap. You will not even want one. To say that you should smoke tobacco cigarettes over e-cigarettes is INSANE. Governments perceive they are getting cheated out of tobacco tax money by this, and that is the ONLY reason they want to stop it. So you'll have no choice but to pay their price and buy tobacco cigarettes. Or quit.
LMAO this is in no way jounalism. It is an antismoking finatics opinion. he says nicotine is addictive as crack. I don't think so. crack is so addictive it only takes doing it once to be hooked so bad you can't go a day without it. with nicotine many nonsmokers have had a drag or even a full cig and never got hooked. Also there are social smokers. They only smoke when drinking or with smokers. He says nicotine is deadly. only when used in high amts. but guess what the caffine in your coffee, tea and energy drinks is also deadly in large amts. Oh and CAFFINE IS ADDICTIVE. lets put out a ban on caffine especially since it is deffinataly marketed to kids. He says because e cigs have flavors they are marketed to kids. I am so sorry but adults don't care for flavors like dirt, wood, steel wool or any other flavor that kids don't like. adults love nice sweet flavors as much as any kid. Nobody who eats anything sweet has any right to claims flavors are marketed to kids banning nicotine altogether. Not going to happen. why? First, because a huge amt of our countrys revenue is from tobacco product taxes. Second, because it would be the prohibition all over again. We are grown adults and so long as we do not harm others we should have the right to do whatever we want to our bodies. No e cig user is naive enough to beleive they are 100% safe but we do beleive they are a lot safer than what we were using. Everything we consume has some long term side affect. And I finish with my opinion of you Dana. You are nothing more than a moral thumping, oppressive, one sided idiot who has no clue how to get the facts if it hit you in the face. If you really wanted to get the truth you would have done interviews from both sides. researched how many people have actually become sick or died from ecig related issues. BTW the answer to that q is 0.
Hi Dana, Fair enough on your anti-nicotine stance. From my perspective that is entirely reasonable. However, as someone who did switch from regular cigarettes to the nicotine vaporizers the biggest concern I have is the ban first and ask questions later mentality. (Or not ask questions later, which is of even greater concern.) As far as "flavoring" anything tobacco related, adults do enjoy a change in flavor. I apologize as not many non-smokers don't realize that different brands can taste different in terms of regular tobacco. Regulation in a reasonable state is very much needed. But the flavoring argument is somewhat moot. We aren't arguing that flavored condoms are making minors have sex. Some people have "sex addiction." Why are we arguing it here? The flavoring argument becomes moot also because of the fact that if we go with the e-juice having no flavor, adults who want it can add their own. If there are substantial benefits to an alternative nicotine intake, then it shouldn't be shut down. The closing comment of 'good luck' really means that many are happy to send several people back to smoking carcinogens and tobacco. You know as well as I do that tobacco isn't going to be banned federally as per your examples of other addictive substances. The tobacco lobby is too big for that to happen anytime soon. Are there risks? Of course. The caveat is that traditional cigarettes have been around for several decades. Vaporizers have not been publicly available. Oral absorption rate of nicotine is severely different than inhalation through the lungs. So there is a chance that the "e-cigarette" will work for one and not for another. I was so sick from smoking that I didn't care if it was the placebo effect. The end goal was to find out the answer to this question: "Does it work?" Purely asked from a current smoker's perspective. I'm okay with people who are anti-smoking and anti-drug use. To each their own when it comes to opinion. However the moves to get something banned without more research from the agency looking to ban it, is morally wrong. If the tobacco companies had come up with the product first, there wouldn't be this debate. Because they have billions of dollars to toss at lobbying. They would make the same argument that it is a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, had they been forced to stop producing traditional cigarettes. The devil is in the details, and no one at this point has the details yet. If this device can be used at the choice of the user for cessation, then banning it is cutting off one's nose to spite their face. If the device sustains current nicotine addicts in a way that is not going to have any impact for secondhand effect, then again we are potentially stopping what could give both sides of the argument some common ground. The majority of smokers would have quit if they were able. If you are fully aware of someone on heroin or crack/cocaine having withdrawal and have sympathy or a remote understanding for that plight, not having any for nicotine users is rather hypocritical. If we realize we can't fully stop heroin use and many municipalities offer clean needles to prevent the spread of disease, then consider this along those same lines. We can stop the potential spread of cancer from secondhand through the e-cigarette. Does that make nicotine any less addictive and e-cigarettes any more "right/wrong?" No, but I hardly see how it is glorifying it to minors when we still have movies with smokers and cigarettes. The issue at hand is personal responsibility. The same concept that makes alcohol legal, and traditional cigarettes still legal. Apparently that no longer exists. We should all wear helmets outside in case something falls out of the sky, and safety pads in case we fall or hit our arm against something. All food put through a blender in case we accidentally choke on it, and all vehicles should not go over 2 MPH because impact is dangerous. Some people huff household cleaners, should we ban those too? Of course not. Because the majority of people don't use them in that way. That applies here as well. Education for non-smokers on nicotine will be the biggest deterrent, where demonetization will always attract people who are looking to be different or go against the norm. That is where the teenage demographic gets hooked in. Let us place regulation and bans based on actual specific product education and not wild and unproven speculation. Nothing wrong with turning to an 18 year old and saying that if they start smoking, they know the risks and it is on them to stop. I'm an adult and I do not need other adults with no idea of what the addiction is like, telling me what I do and don't need to do. Nor do I need them saving me from unforeseen and unknown to possibly non-existent consequences. I make the decisions in my life and if I make the wrong one, there is no one else to blame but myself. If I need a hero, I will call for one. If I want a Champion, I will find one. At this point the responsibility is on me, and I am in zero need of volunteers to appeal to the contrary on my behalf. The e-cigarettes are only cessation devices if the users excersize a strict regimen of stepping down the nicotine level via a schedule. It can be used that way, however I agree should not be marketed that way. I can use a car to kill someone, but none of the manufacturers sell it like that. I agree with you that there are some vendors that need to do need a moral check on their advertising discretion. Just as they should not be marketed to circumvent smoking where there are bans. Not everyone is a pro/con zealot. Please consider those in the middle ground before immediately taking a stance on either side. For those who are very passionate about the pro e-cigarette side of the discussion, stop the mud slinging. The only way to have things like this product be acceptable is to remain grounded in reason. If you sell it in a way that is too good to be true, you will face this backlash. Because with mostly everything: "If it sounds to good to be true, it is/probably is." Attacking either side is not going to change anyone's mind. This post isn't an article in the New England Journal of Medicine or even the New York Times website. Dana does contribute for the website, however this is a blog. It isn't held to the same standards of "old school" journalism. Cease the personal attacks. On the internet, anyone can have a soap box. My apologies for length as two cents has turned into forty-two given the responses.
Sheesh, Mr. Blankenhorn! Self righteousness must come very easily to you. As far as I can tell, you really have no qualifications whatsoever to make your opinion worthy of the attention you've received from your blog post. I see nothing in your bio to suggest you have any medical education. You don't smoke so you really haven't any experience to draw from. You clearly did little to no research, so you can't claim anything you've written is factually based. Apparently, the only thing you have is, again, your uninformed self righteousness. If you had an honest interest in this subject, instead of becoming defensive, you'd seriously listen to those whose health and well being have been positively affected by "e-cigarettes", AKA Personal Vaporizers. Is that too much to ask? BTW, you look a bit overweight in your photo. Apparently, it's really unhealthy to be overweight. Even a little bit overweight is BAD! Suck it up, go on a diet and get some exercise. Perhaps you're addicted to good tasting food. Perhaps we should do away with good tasting food because children might eat it and become overweight and unhealthy. In fact, perhaps we should ban good tasting healthy food. It might lead to eating Oreos that contain nasty, deadly, unhealthy trans-fats.......etc., etc., ad nauseum.....You do see where I'm going with this, right?
HotLantaGal sez: The scam is you have a drug delivery system, delivering a drug we know causes cancer... There is no scientific evidence to suggest that nicotine causes cancer. Cigarettes can, but that is due to the many other substances in cigarettes, not the nicotine. HotLantaGal sez: ...which is sold over the counter and, in many states, in bright child-friendly flavors. In actuality, most liquid for e-cigarettes is not sold over the counter; there are very few actual stores that sell this stuff. Most is only available on-line. Adults like candy flavors too. adimauro sez: The world would be a better place without ANY form of cigarette. End of story. Agreed. But we live in the real world where cigarettes are legal. I would love to see them outlawed - but you never will because of the sheer amount of revenue generated from them - money for the manufacturers and the governments who collect taxes on them. Dana sez: If you want to get rid of any journalism that disturbs your beautiful mind then please don't read my stuff. Stay with Pravda, or its local equivalent. Your Pravda comment is spurious at best, but I guess it is easier than addressing the facts that contradict what you have written. There is a difference between journalism that can make people think, and that can shake up one's current beliefs and opinions (see anything ever written by Matt Tabbi) and shoddy journalism. This piece you have written falls into the latter category. flaredOne sez: Sure -- defer the pain of quitting as long as possible. And reduce the ancillary damages due to inhaling hot toxins and particulates. You're still being controlled by your "jones". I would counter that if a person can satisfy their jones in a safer way while attempting to deal with it makes more sense than doing so via a much more harmful method in the interim. llandau sez: Seems that not much is said about pinching tobacco our using pouches -- these smokeless versions of tobacco delivering nicotine say on the packages that there is a danger of getting mouth cancer using the product. There is the blatent proof in black and white that the very producers of the product admit that it is harmful to one's health -- NO SMOKE NEEDED. As with cigarettes, the cancer-causing agents in smokeless tobacco products comes from the vast array of chemicals in such products, not from the nicotine itself. Dana sez: Having a "healthier" way to deliver an addictive, deadly drug into your system doesn't make for wellness." Once again, your point about nicotine being a "deadly drug" is a completely misguided claim. Cigarettes are deadly due to the hundreds of other poisons in them, but not the nicotine. And what the hell does Lindsay Lohan have to do with any of this? Dana also sez: At the risk of repeating myself, if the device is to be sold as a stop-smoking aid, it needs to be regulated as such. I agree that, if this is the case, and they are marketed in such a way, that this does need to be backed by empirical data. However, e-cigs are not sold as a stop-smoking aid. If any manufacturer is making that claim, then they need to be called out on it. Most do not make that claim. That also means you need a progression of lower-and-lower dosages, and have a doctor prescribe it. Or at least supervise. Such prescription / supervision is not required for the patch or Nicorette gum. What is your take on these products and their availability?
Your website's tagging system made a complete mess of my post, so allow me to try again..... In your article you say that: Publicly, they?re touted as a way to get off cigarettes, like nicotine lozenges or patches. E-Cigs have not been proven to be a successful smoking cessation device. Although there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support that they work in this manner, there is little controlled, clinical evidence. As such, E-cig manufacturers cannot sell these as cessation products ? if they do, they are being misleading and those companies should be taken to task for that. That said, there has been a limited amount of clinical research to date. I would suggest taking a look here: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf So why have they also been made in flavors like cookies-and- cream, strawberry and banana? I can guess at the point you are trying to make here, but possibly framing this statement within an actual context of some sort would be helpful (and would be expected in any well-written article). I would postulate that the reason is because many people like those flavors (adults included). I happen to be a 39-year old who likes cookies-and-cream ice cream (although B&J?s Cherry Garcia is my favorite). A bartender at a local restaurant makes a shooter that tastes exactly like a candy SweeTart ? does this mean that they are attempting to lure 12-year olds in to have a shot at the bar on their way home from school? I would also suggest that, for many e-cig users, not only have they used such a device to move away from using traditional cigarettes, but having something that does not taste like a typical cigarette also helps in that regard. The reason you don?t have versions of this technology for cocaine, heroin or THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is because those particular substances are banned as dangerous drugs. Nicotine is just as dangerous? Actually, this is simply untrue. Nicotine, by itself, poses a very minimal health risk. That is simply a fact (and I am saying this as someone with an MS in Developmental Psychology who spent a number of years researching addictive behaviors, including smoking, and who works in pharmaceutical research ? so I do know a bit about which I speak). The health risk posed by cigarettes is not the nicotine itself, but by the hundreds of carcinogens found in a typical cigarette. Although it is the nicotine that is addictive, and makes quitting smoking so difficult for so many people. Can pure nicotine, in high concentrations, pose a danger? Yes. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that the amount of nicotine ingested from an e-cig is nowhere near such levels. The point you are trying to make is akin to equating the amount of alcohol found in a 12 oz beer to that found in 12oz of pure, grain alcohol. Just so you know that if you decide to addict yourself to these things today, the FDA may make you quit them in 2012. And that won?t be easy. You, once again, seem to miss the point here. If you were to look closely at those groups of people who do use e-cigs, you would find that the vast majority are former smokers of tobacco cigarettes. There are not scores of people running out to purchase and use e-cigs as their first exposure to nicotine use. Many of us who did smoke at one time realize how detrimental this was to our health, and have made multiple (and unsuccessful) attempts to quit. For many, this device has helped people to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes for good (again, I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence). In a perfect world, people could quit smoking and also leave their nicotine addiction behind for good (and some users of e-cigs have reported tapering off their nicotine levels in these devices to wean themselves off of their addiction; I am also in the process of doing so myself). Better yet ? people could simply and easily quit cold turkey and never smoke a cigarette again ? but that is very difficult for many to do. I would ask you ? which is the better choice for a nicotine addict while they deal with their addiction?: Using a device that delivers a low dose of nicotine on water vapor (with no other chemicals involved)? Or sucking down the hundreds of deadly, cancer- causing poisons found in a typical cigarette?
God forbid smokers have an alternative to slowly killing themselves. We sheep need you and the government to tell us what is best for us. I appreciate your input and your learn'd opinion concerning what I should and should not be allowed to put into my body. Please ban ecigarettes before my lungs and body heal completely? I shouldn't be allowed to make an informed decision all by my self, that would be dangerous! It's my body and I choose to use an ecigarette as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes. My health has improved. I no longer cough in the mornings. I have no trouble climbing stairs. My seasonal allergic asthma has improved, I haven't needed to use my rescue inhaler in about a year. I appreciate your desire to protect me from all of this :) Please stop now or you will probably kill me.
?Publicly, they?re touted as a way to get off cigarettes, like nicotine lozenges or patches.? E-Cigs have not been proven to be a successful smoking cessation device. Although there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support that they work in this manner, there is little controlled, clinical evidence. As such, E-cig manufacturers cannot sell these as cessation products ? if they do, they are being misleading and those companies should be taken to task for that. That said, there has been a limited amount of clinical research to date. I would suggest taking a look here: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf ?So why have they also been made in flavors like cookies-and- cream, strawberry and banana?? I can guess at the point you are trying to make here, but possibly framing this statement within an actual context of some sort would be helpful (and would be expected in any well-written article). I would postulate that the reason is because many people like those flavors (adults included). I happen to be a 39-year old who likes cookies-and-cream ice cream (although B&J?s Cherry Garcia is my favorite). A bartender at a local restaurant makes a shooter that tastes exactly like a candy SweeTart ? does this mean that they are attempting to lure 12-year olds in to have a shot at the bar on their way home from school? I would also suggest that, for many e-cig users, not only have they used such a device to move away from using traditional cigarettes, but having something that does not taste like a typical cigarette also helps in that regard. ?The reason you don?t have versions of this technology for cocaine, heroin or THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is because those particular substances are banned as dangerous drugs. Nicotine is just as dangerous?? Actually, this is simply untrue. Nicotine, by itself, poses a very minimal health risk. That is simply a fact (and I am saying this as someone with an MS in Developmental Psychology who spent a number of years researching addictive behaviors, including smoking, and who works in pharmaceutical research ? so I do know a bit about which I speak). The health risk posed by cigarettes is not the nicotine itself, but by the hundreds of carcinogens found in a typical cigarette. Although it is the nicotine that is addictive, and makes quitting smoking so difficult for so many people. Can pure nicotine, in high concentrations, pose a danger? Yes. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that the amount of nicotine ingested from an e-cig is nowhere near such levels. The point you are trying to make is akin to claiming the amount of alcohol found in a 12 oz beer is equivalent to that found in 12oz of pure, grain alcohol. ?Just so you know that if you decide to addict yourself to these things today, the FDA may make you quit them in 2012. And that won?t be easy.? You, once again, seem to miss the point here. If you were to look closely at those groups of people who do use e-cigs, you would find that the vast majority are former smokers of tobacco cigarettes. There are not scores of people running out to purchase and use e-cigs as their first exposure to nicotine use. Many of us who did smoke at one time realize how detrimental this was to our health, and have made multiple (and unsuccessful) attempts to quit. For many, this device has helped people to quit smoking tobacco cigarettes for good (again, I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence). In a perfect world, people could quit smoking and also leave their nicotine addiction behind for good (and some users of e-cigs have reported tapering off their nicotine levels in these devices to wean themselves off of their addiction; I am also in the process of doing so myself). Better yet ? people could simply and easily quit cold turkey and never smoke a cigarette again ? but that is very difficult for many to do. I would ask you ? which is the better choice for a nicotine addict while they deal with their addiction?: Using a device that delivers a low dose of nicotine on water vapor (with no other chemicals involved)? Or sucking down the hundreds of deadly, cancer- causing poisons found in a typical cigarette?
What an ignorant, one-sided, and ill-researched article. Dana, get your facts straight please!! There are too many inaccurate statements in this article to even count. It is sickeningly obvious that the FDA has no interest in actually obtaining the truth about these products or protecting the the American people. Indeed, these actions taken by the FDA are nothing more than greed and corrupt alliances with Big Tobacco, Big Pharmaceutical companies. Their attempt to maintain current levels of tobacco tax revenue come at the cost of thousands of lives. The FDA is who should be under investigation, not e-cigarettes. A full scale criminal investigation should be launched and lawsuits should be filed against them for their slanderous lies about e-cigarettes and false accusations fueled by their greed. If there is any sliver of justice left in the court system, they won't get away with this crime! Oh, and just a quick note to the FDA, the corrupt doctors that are being paid to say e-cigs are dangerous, and the author of this ill-informed article: I smoked cigarettes for 10 years before I quit and began vaping with e-cigs. I had a complete physical last week and part of that included a lung capacity test. Not only did my tests reveal a huge improvement from last year, but my doctor said that my breath capacity and lungs are among the strongest he has ever seen! Put that in your "report" and smoke it!!
Hi there! I haven't smoked a cigarette since January 1st this year. On that very day, I switched to an electronic nicotine annihilator. Within days, my chronic smoker's cough ceased. I feel so much better for not breathing in smoke. And even though I never smoked indoors, I feel that I'm much more people- friendly because of it. My partner certainly appreciates the fact that I no longer smell like an ashtray and can keep up with her when out walking or climbing a long flight of stairs! ;-) I'm a nicotine addict - I admit it. If I could turn back time, I'd go back to the day that I first smoked a cigarette and stop myself right there and then. Unfortunately, I can't do that. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to Man, but thankfully, it's not that harmful. What is harmful though, is the most common way that the drug is administered, which is by smoking tobacco. Other highly addictive drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, are harmful in themselves, regardless of the way that they are administered. I do hope that you reconsider your opinions on this matter. Regards Ian