E-Cigarette…Anyone Else?

Armand Rossetti
Armand Rossetti
Contributor
Posted by Armand RossettiJuly 24, 2009 10:00 AM

The FDA has alleged that one of several E-cigarette distributors in the United States, Smoking Everywhere, Inc. (SE), has marketed a product that is both an unapproved drug (nicotine) and an unapproved medical device (synthetic cigarette body).

The FDA made this determination after examining the product, several claims made about the product, and information that SE, itself, provided to the FDA. For further information, please read E-cigarette Anyone?

While class I medical devices (gauze pads, throat sticks and the like) do not necessarily need FDA approval, class II or III medical devices do require FDA clearance before legal marketing can occur. The FDA has classified the E-cigarette as a class III medical device, and as such that device must undergo the strictest FDA scrutiny before it can reach the marketplace.

Depending on the manufacturer and type, the cost of entry to use E-cigarettes can vary from $14.99 for the “disposable” version all the way up to more than $200.00 for reusable deluxe models. Complete “starter kits” with cartridges and batteries included have been advertized at around $100. While the $200.00 price tag might discourage younger users, the chic of it all and the curiosity to try an E-cigarette at the price of about three packs of cigarettes ($14.99) might entice a younger demographic to give it a try.

Most people who use E-cigarettes do so with the intention of cutting down on smoking, or with the anticipation being able to get a nicotine high while working indoors (no smoke = no ban). Other consumers use the device to quit smoking altogether. Cessation is possible because the nicotine concentrations in the cartridges can range from 16 mg all the way down to zero mg. The choice remains with the consumer.

There can be no dispute that well designed and well regulated E-cigarettes have a potential to aid smokers in reducing or eliminating their habits. And several manufacturers are heading in the direction of making the E-cigarette device as safe as possible.

However, E-cigarettes might also provide an avenue for further addiction. A first time E-Cigarette user with the handle, “Utada” recently posted an after purchase review on Amazon.com. Although Utada was going to give the SE distributed E-cigarette five (5) stars, Utada only gave the product three (3) stars because he or she felt that the product was addictive since it had nicotine.

But here's the catch. When Utada was smoking real cigarettes, she smoked only 5 or 6 a day. However, with the E-cigarette, Utada wound up smoking two cartridges a day (each cartridge being equal to 20 regular cigarettes). Utada continued her review by advising the purchase of “e-cig juice” an after market nicotine cartridge rejuvenator, which comes in different flavors. With e-cig juice (or E.LIQUID, as one example), Utada expected to save a lot of money. In fact, using e-cig juice to extend the life of the device, reduces the cost of “smoking” significantly to far less than $5.00+ a pack for 20 smokes (see below). But there is a potential health hazard in using an E-cigarette beyond the number of cycles that the manufacturer has built into the device; an example follows.

Recently, several complaints have surfaced about a burning taste that consumers experience after cycling the E-cigarette through a number of puffs. This phenomenon may or may not involve SE’s version of the E-cigarette, but it would be prudent to obtain more information from the manufacturer.

As one blogger illustrated, most E-cigarette devices contain a wick inside a filament that soaks up the liquid in the cylinder that contains nicotine. A battery powered filament then heats the liquid that finds its way to the wick to form a vapor. After a while, the wick dries out fairly easily and starts to burn forming “burnt e-liquid”). Thereafter, the residual E-liquid has a propensity to turn into a solid and begin to burn. That sequence is what creates an unwelcome taste, and a possible, device-related health hazard. With little regulation, the possibilities for serious health risks seem as endless as human creativity will permit.

For example, some ardent E-cigarette consumers have expressed concern that manufacturers may be using a cheap polyester material to make the filter portion of the cigarette. Polyester filters could turn out to be dangerous when burned and inhaled.

Moreover, E-cig liquid is sold in 15 milliliter bottles in several flavors and nicotine strengths for $14.99. According to one distributor, only 2 or 3 drops of the liquid will regenerate a cartridge. Since there are 20 drops per milliliter, that means that one 15 milliliter bottle contains from 100 to 150 cartridge refills, and one cartridge equals 20 cigarettes. Doing some simple math, like many young people are able to do, a cigarette equivalent could cost as little as $14.99 divided by 3000, or about half a cent (or 10 cents a pack). It’s a great way to beat the cigarette tax.

To reiterate, the E-cigarette is a device, nicotine is a drug, and the FDA will be regulating both. Therefore it is within the purview of the FDA to ensure the safety of the E-cigarette device and its delivery of a drug. Otherwise, problems associated with misuse and/or device alteration might abound

Bottom line: In the interest of consumer safety, the FDA should require all E-cigarette manufacturers list materials used in respective devices. In addition, the FDA should require E-cigarette manufacturers to conduct studies to determine whether any materials subject to heat during cycling, including polyester, might produce toxins. Smart manufacturers should be forthcoming with appropriate warnings and, lastly, all forms of nicotine, including E-cig juice should be FDA regulated.

40 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Shan
Posted by Shan
July 24, 2009 12:41 PM

This is a new and improved post. I'm delighted to find your mind is not entirely closed on this subject. Thank you, sincerely!

I must address this "one cartridge equals 20 regular cigarettes" nonsense, though. This is a notoriously constant complaint about some marketers at the E-Cig Forum. Anyone who has ANY experience with cartridges knows this is an off-the-charts exaggeration. (Vapers want responsible marketing, too; we resent being lied to.)

You're not understanding (and I mean NO offense; how could you understand?) the concept of "regenerating a cartridge," as you called it, what most of us call "topping off." A certain amount of liquid remains in the wicking; the liquid farthest from the heating element doesn't get vaporized, generally. One adds 2 or 3 drops to re-soak the wicking closest to the heating element when the vapor begins to thin. (The heating element does NOT touch the wicking material, and I have never seen even slightly singed material inside a cartridge, ever.) Anyway, 2-to-3 drops of liquid does NOT constitute the equivalent of 20 regular cigarettes. Those few drops might yield maybe 10 good puffs from a decent device, far less than even one cigarette. So your concerns about greatly upping one's nicotine intake are extrapolated from bad information you (and a lot of new vapers) have been given.

I think it would be terrific if we had a reasonable regulation and periodic batch-testing of nicotine liquid. Most of the liquids I have bought already disclose their ingredients in detail -- see Johnson Creek and Totally Wicked for details -- and even include childproofed packaging. And of course I want the devices I use to be safe. I'm pretty sure most of the suppliers also want their kits to be safe and to work well... else they lose repeat business, which is crucial. Reputation is everything among vapers, since there is no advertising to speak of.

I simply do not want to have to give up vaping while companies sort all this out with the FDA. In order to stop me from a practice I find helpful, healthful, and enjoyable, the FDA should have to prove it is at least as bad for my health as smoking, and give it the same leeway it affords approved items like Chantix and Nicorette. Yet that's not what's happening. The FDA is jumping to conclusions based on small samples, misrepresenting their own data, and worst of all stopping shipments of equipment I need to continue vaping. That's wrong.

Oh, and why this should be taxed any more than nicotine gums or Nicotrol is something I don't understand. What is the rationale for placing a tobacco-related "sin tax" on this product? The devices certainly shouldn't be taxed. They contain no nicotine and do not have to be used with nicotine. Liquids also do not have to contain nicotine. And nicotine is (a) not a carcinogen and (b) cleared by the body within days; its addictive powers are very overstated. Several (not all, but several) of us have found that it's not the lack of nicotine that caused problems quitting... it was the lack of the tactile and habitual aspects of smoking that made quitting nearly impossible. Otherwise, so many of us would not be vaping 0-nic and not missing nicotine.

I do really wish that the media would take a more critical look at what the FDA has done and said. They tested liquids from a few cartridges, all of which coincidentally came from 2 companies CURRENTLY SUING THE FDA for halting shipments: SmokingEverywhere and NJoy. A very tiny amount of one not-great chemical, diethylene glycol, was found in ONE cartridge. Less than half of the carts tested contained tobacco-specific nitrosamines... I'm surprised ALL the carts didn't contain some, so it appears some liquid manufacturers are doing a very good job of purifying their ingredients. Since the very same chemicals are found in FDA-approved smoking cessation aids, I am frankly boggled by the uproar over this.

I know vaping may not be 100% safe. I know cigarettes are definitely not 100% safe. I know my breathing and stamina have improved and my BP has gone down since I quit smoking. If you were a smoker, what would YOU do?

Let's be careful not to stand in the way of what might be significant progress in public health. That should be a grounding principle of the FDA, but right now they seem to be engaging in petty revenge tactics. No wonder the FDA has lost so much public trust.

Posted by
July 24, 2009 1:47 PM

I would like to see industry standards. The e-smoke industry is (understandably) a little apprehensive of the FDA, feeling like they aren't going to get a fair shake. I'd like to see e-cigs standardized and sold widely.

Analog cigarettes kill 400,000 people a year. I feel strongly that e-cigs will fractionalize these numbers if mass produced and common. When we reach that day, we can start working on getting people off of e-cigs.

In the meantime, I will continue to use my e-cig. Trace amounts of this and one instance of that don't change the fact that I'm no longer smoking regular cigarettes and feel great.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
July 24, 2009 2:27 PM

Thank you Shan and Danno for your contributions to this set of blogs. Safety is always first, and knowing the risk versus benefit factors in all that we do that affects our health is very important. When it comes to maintaining our health, there is little room for gross negligence or recklessness on the part of drug and device manufacturers.

I sincerely hope that the e-cigarette controversy comes to a beneficial conclusion for the FDA, e-cig manufacturers and consumers.

Posted by
July 24, 2009 2:31 PM

I smoked for 15 years. Due to Stress. NOT because it was cool. Cigarettes were easily accessible to me seeing that my mother smoked, as well as everyone else I knew. Shoot.... my friends would take cartons from Wal-mart and sell them $1 a pack to other High School students.

How many kids under the age of 18 do YOU know who would be willing to fork over $40 - $200 for a kit? I cant think of a single one. I sure as hell wouldnt have been able to afford it back then! Worry more about the analogs which are cheaper, and easily accessible.

I quit smoking with my E-Cigarette (DSE-901) on April 29th 2009. And I have not looked back. With such vendors as Johnson Creek Smoke Juice, Nhaler.com, and MyFreedomSmokes.com.... they keep my happy and in vape heaven. These are AMERICAN made juice... NOT Chinese.

The FDA and the Government doesnt care if the E-Cig is healthy or not. What they care about is getting their slice of the pie. And if Smokers are becoming ex-smokers because of the E-Cig then there are also less deaths.

If [u]IF[/u] the E-Cig makes it though this trying time of insanity... there will be a healthier America. But for some reason I dont think that this matters in a world where the FDA approves drugs that make you sicker than the initial ailment that you had the medication prescribed to you in the first place.

Oooooh! Big bad scary tobacco companies will also lose money! Good.... how many people have they killed over the years? Well.... They will not get me. I will gladly become a felon and live a long and very happy/healthy with my Electronic Cigarette.

Posted by
July 24, 2009 2:43 PM

I hope that this comes across the right hands.....

Electronic Cigarettes Work
Posted by vapor in Buzz, Featured Articles, News, Nicotine, Other Topics, Tobacco on 07 24th, 2009 | no responses

The findings of a local medical survey into electronic cigarettes has shown that the technology can help smokers kick the habit. Doctors reported that 45 percent of South African smokers who used e-cigarettes were able to quit tobacco smoking within two months.

Over an eight week study period, doctors supplied 349 patients with Twisp (More ... ). Of Dutch origin, the Twisp e-cigarette is an electronic device that delivers nicotine through vapour but without the tar, carcinogens or smoke found in standard cigarettes. All participating doctors agreed that e-cigarettes are a significantly more healthy alternative to conventional smoking.

The study’s outcome revealed that:

* Six per cent of smokers quit within two weeks increasing to 45 percent within eight weeks.

* Fifty-two percent of all patients reported both increased levels of energy and visible improvement in their physical appearance

* When asked what factors about smoking tobacco cigarettes were the hardest to give up, 49 percent of patients said nicotine cravings and 24 percent the habit itself. Twenty seven percent of all participating smokers said that a combination of all factors � the habit, nicotine, the taste and feeling of smoking � made it hard to quit.

When asked if an e-cigarette could act as an agent to overcome all the physical and psychological challenges to quit tobacco smoking, all doctors said ‘yes’.

Dr Clifford Hulley, one of the participating medical professionals in the survey, reported that “an e-cigarette is the most effective treatment method on the market for quitting tobacco smoking”.

Prof Martin Veller, Head Vascular Surgeon at the University of the Witwatersrand, who participated in the project said that e-cigarettes have the appearance of normal tobacco cigarettes but are non-toxic. “Motivated by my wife’s experience, who smoked traditional cigarettes heavily until the moment she replaced them with electronic cigarettes, I have advised my patients to consider e-cigarettes as an alternative nicotine source.”

Dr Kishore Deva, a general practitioner from Pretoria, quit tobacco using Twisp over a six week period and reported that “around 10 to 15 Twisp puffs are equivalent to the same amount of nicotine delivered by a tobacco cigarette”. He added that “nicotine is not responsible for the health risks that tobacco cigarettes hold. In my view Twisp is a safe product to use”.

Earlier this year Health New Zealand carried out trials into the safety of e-cigarettes. According to the head of research Dr Murray Laugeson, the test found that e-cigarettes were very safe relative to cigarettes, and also safe in absolute terms on all measurements.

“Using micro-electronics, an e-cigrarette vaporises, separately for each puff, very small quantities of nicotine dissolved in propylene glycol, two small well-known molecules with excellent safety profiles, into a fine aerosol. Each puff contains one third to one half the nicotine in a tobacco cigarette’s puff. The cartridge liquid is tobacco-free and no combustion occurs.”

According to Matt Salmon, president of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) in the USA, available data indicates that electronic cigarettes reduce the risk of illness and death to under one percent of the risk posed by tobacco cigarettes which are responsible for 400�000 deaths per year in the US � more than Aids, drugs, homicides, fires and auto accidents combined.

Via: Electronic Cigarettes Work

VocalEK
Posted by VocalEK
July 26, 2009 5:26 PM

"Nicotine high?" What exactly is the behavior that you are observing as people return from the parking lot after smoking a cigarette, Mr. Rosetti? Are they stumbling all over the place? Slurring their words? Are they a danger behind the wheel of a car or operating machinery? Do they appear to be in some weird, hyper-euphoric state? If so, it wasn't tobacco they were smoking!

I use an e-cigarette with the intention of remaining alert and able to concentrate so that I can perform my work more accurately, and to perform more work becuase I don't have to waste time running outside several times a day to pollute my lungs.

I resent the pharase "nicotine high." It is inaccurate and pejorative

Posted by
July 26, 2009 10:09 PM

Hmmmm....this is Injury Board.com.....could it be that Mr. Rossetti is a lawyer looking to start one of those "class action" lawsuits where the lawyers make millions and the 'clients' get 50 cents????????????

I smoked for 40 years, and used every government approved method to quit....several times over. None worked. I switched to e-cigs, and have not smoked a REAL cigarette for 6 months. I will take my chances with an e-cig.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
July 27, 2009 7:31 AM

Raven Reeves: Thanks for your information. I am sure that those who read your two comments will recognize your sincerity and commitment to inform others.

VocalEK: Thank you. It is always good to see comments such as yours that present another perspective. Permit me to offer further commentary form another source:

More ...

Marty Zielke: Thanks. I am an attorney licensed in three jurisdictions and to practice before the US Patent office. I have no interest in organizing or participating in a class action lawsuit.

However, as a dentist, I do have an interest in public health and safety. I am not pro or con any particular medical device or drug, but I do expect consumers, manufacturers, distributors, healthcare organizations, and federal agencies connected with all of the above to welcome a dialogue that will eventually promote highly efficient and safe therapeutic means.

E-cig science seems to be in its infancy, technologically. We cannot have hucksters, no matter the country of origin, flooding the market with dangerous, alterable devices and after market items that remain untested, and subject to ingenious alteration at the cost of everyone's health and safety.

If all participants can reach a consensus concerning issues of e-cig efficacy and safety, then I will have nothing further to say unless and until a lack of compliance results in injury, and that is the way that it should be.

VocalEK
Posted by VocalEK
July 27, 2009 9:42 AM

Mr. Rosetti: Thank you for the link to information posted by the U of Minn that supports my position. Nicotine contributes to cognitive enhancement, memory improvement, mood modulation, and a reduction in tension and anxiety.

The first bullet under Possible Withdrawal Symptoms describes what can happen when smokers abstain from nicotine. We see some of the same effects that you see when an alcoholic or an illicit drug user is NOT abstaining and has gotten high: Irritability, anger, hostility, anxiety, nervousness, panic, poor concentration, disorientation, lightheadedness. It seems to me that "nicotine high" is an oxymoron.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
July 27, 2009 9:46 AM

VocalEK:

You were not very vocal about the following information thatg appeared within the same linked webpage"

"Nicotine is:
1000 X more potent than alcohol
10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
A 1-2 pack per day smoker takes 200-400 hits daily for years. This constant intake of a fast acting drug (which affects mood, concentration & performance).. eventually produces dependence."

Shan
Posted by Shan
July 27, 2009 11:51 AM

Mr. Rossetti -- I'm sure you realize that caffeine is also addictive. I have had headaches for DAYS on the occasions I've stopped using it; a much worse symptom than anything I experienced while giving up nicotine. Where does caffeine fall in this list? Ah, it's not there. But caffeine is a culturally acceptable addiction, and carries little possibility of harm in and of itself (though coffee does stain teeth pretty well).

As for "potency": That information seems to indicate the addictive qualities of the various substances mentioned, not potency. How one quantifies addictive power is a mystery, but I'm disputing these numbers, at least in some cases, possibly many. We have all known people who have little difficulty quitting smoking. It took me no time to wean off nicotine using an e-cig; the HABIT is what I enjoy and don't wish to give up. And I fail to see how an addiction to nicotine, without the usual substances that accompany it, is any more injurious than an addiction to caffeine. The term "addiction" is thrown around much too lightly these days. Do you know doctors who stop prescribing Nicotrol to patients who continue to want it? Is Nicorette not OTC? Where's the concern about this horrible addiction?

Kicking a morphine addiction would be far more difficult than merely injecting or swallowing an inert substance to mimic the habitual behaviors connected with morphine use. The numbers, and this comparison, do not appear credible.

And once again I point to a rich source of information: vapers and our vendors. Poke around at the E-Cig Forum and you will indeed find many vapers who don't use nicotine, plus many (probably most) vendors that offer zero-nic liquids. If there weren't a market for zero-nic, these liquids wouldn't exist.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
July 27, 2009 4:13 PM

Shan:

From the point of view of relative safety:

"Some people are trying to use nicotine therapeutically but this mixed bag of effects might make them think again. And such caution might be merited, since it appears that when the body metabolizes (breaks down) nicotine, carcinogenic compounds are released."

More ...

"Caffeine intake causes no long-term health consequences in adults and may confer some health benefits. Therefore, moderate caffeine intake is not contraindicated; patients may safely consume two to three cups of coffee or the equivalent amount of caffeine on a daily basis. Family physicians can devote their dietary counseling time to other issues."

More ...

Nicotine is probably on the other side of the regulation threshold. Throw in questionable safety concerning the black box called the delivery device; i.e., the (e-cig) [some e-cigs might be safe, others not so, and most e-cigs can be reused, adding another variable to the safety equation).

We could argue all day long and for many days on end, but the FDA, specific consumers, and healthcare providers should be the ones involved, concerning the need or lack of need for e-cig and nicotine regulation.

Mvnkie
Posted by Mvnkie
July 28, 2009 3:02 AM

Earlier today I got my e-cig supplies from a regular customer at my workplace; since leaving work, I've smoked 6 analog cigs whereas on the average day, I would have already gone through 14 or 15-

I'm certain this will come off as being a conspiracy theorist, but it is worth noting that the same author referenced above by the Attorney/Dentist that states:
""Nicotine is:
1000 X more potent than alcohol
10-100 X more potent than barbiturates" etc has been supplied with a grand from USSTC (US Smokeless Tobacco Company, a subsidiary of Altria)

These companies care little (if at all) for the health and welfare of their existing client base (they are killing them/us, after all) so taking into account the success of recent fear-mongering campaigns on all fronts, it's not difficult to realize they are indeed concerned with the possibility of losing that to an alternate product, safe or (as their own product[s] is/are) otherwise.

My biggest concern is that lobbyists and those with the most money will determine the outcome in this case, rather than truth and the realistic benefit of these devices.

VocalEK
Posted by VocalEK
July 28, 2009 8:04 PM

Well, since you insist, I'll get vocal. Yes, I am dependent on nicotine. I may even be "addicted" by some folks' standards, but at least I am no longer dying for a cigarette!

I have been diagnosed with adult Attention Deficit Disorder. When I abstain from all forms of nicotine, I am as dangerous behind the wheel of a car as someone who has had several alcoholic drinks, because my concentration and visual memory are impaired. You would not want me working for you, because I keep making mistakes, and would not be able to recognize and correct many of those mistakes when I check my work.

Yes, many people do NOT experience such severe problems. I suspect that about 20% of the people who can't stay off nicotine have problems similar to mine. They may have a personal or family history of depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorder, and/or dementia.

Well, should I be taking the FDA-approved treatment for Attention Deficit Disorder instead of self-medicating with nicotine? Drugs like Ritalin have been linked to several deaths, and at least 50 cases involving serious cardiovascular problems like heart attacks, strokes, hypertension, heart palpitations and arrhythmias in both adults and children taking these medications. The FDA recommends against long-term use of these drugs.

I prefer to take my chances with nicotine. And I would definitely prefer to take my nicotine without the stuff delivered by tobacco smoke!

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 03, 2009 8:04 AM

Response to comment:

Posted by VocalEK
July 28, 2009 8:04 PM

Beginning with the statement:

"Well, since you insist, I'll get vocal."

Thanks once again. Please note that I support your right to make legal choices, and while I cannot make any recommendations or provide any advice, either legal or medical, choosing the lesser of evils seems to be logical and often wise.

In writing this set of blogs on the subject of e-cig, I was attempting to raise questions concerning safety and efficacy. While our system of oversight is not perfect, all that can be expected is that all involved attempt to use common sense and logic based in an ethical approach to achieve safety and efficacy; "all" includes the consumer, the manufacturer, healthcare providers, consumer advocates and the various regulatory agencies.

I wish you the best of luck, and judging by your ability to articulate, I suspect that it is accompanied by an ability to make wise choices.

Elaine Keller
Posted by Elaine Keller
August 03, 2009 12:21 PM

Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Rosetti. I agree with your statement "all that can be expected is that all involved attempt to use common sense and logic based in an ethical approach."

Unfortunately I learned today that the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) would rather see us dead or incapacitated than allow us freedom to use our common sense and to control our own health. They are calling on the Attorneys General of 49 states to remove these products from the market. Their objection to e-cigarettes is not safety per se of the products, but rather the fact that they "might be less likely to reduce nicotine dependence." Judging from their press release, our ceasing to smoke tobacco is just not good enough for them. They insist on 100% nicotine abstinence. I see their "quit or die" approach as highly unethical, if not immoral. More ...

Debbie Church
Posted by Debbie Church
August 06, 2009 10:57 PM

Posted by debbie church
August 06, 2009 10:43 PM
I smoke ecig and have since May 1st. After vaping for two weeks I decided to have a marlboro light. Big mistake I got dizzy and nauseated right away and cold sweats. So when I vape after sleeping all night on my ecig there is no nausea no dizziness and no cold sweats. I would rather use this to cut down on nicotine levels then any other stop smoking aide out there. My breathing is at least 75% better if not more. I have alot more energy and my caugh i had in the morning is not happening anymore either. So I feel the FDA and the Pharm. and Phillip M. rotten dirty bastards are all involved in trying to ban the e-cig from smokers. Also give me a break " Marketing to youth ". Please tell me thats not how they are going to continue to use youth as their spin against the e-cig. Thats just bs and youth knows that also. Another positive side effect of e-cig vaping. I don't stink nor do my clothes,car,or home from tabbaco cigs. I don't miss them at all!!!!!!!


Another point I would like to make is one of my friends has tried to stop smoking for 9 years now on all other stop smoking aides, and thank God she hasn't tried that damn pill, anyways for 14 mos she quit on the patch and is back to smoking since March cuz she says it's way to hard to quit. I told her about the ecig and when shes ready I'm sure she'll give ecig a try.

I truly believe and so do millions of others know this is all about money for the corperate whore's of Pharm. and Phillip Morris. nasty self serving asses. I get my ecig from Widows Beadwork.com. Vape on everyone.

MIke
Posted by MIke
August 07, 2009 7:33 AM

Hey Everyone, there are many valid points being made here. I would just like to say that Traditional cigarettes have 4000 chemicals, and are way worse compared to electronic cigarettes. NOW are electronic cigarettes 100% safe?? of course not, but no body is claiming that it is. So lets allow adults to make their own decision, and if they wish to try e cigarettes More ... let them, they will be be way better off in the long term, because e cigs have no SMOKE no odor, and they don't stain your teeth, and the water vapor is not the same as giving off second hand smoke. Please visit the Electronic cigarette association and read the valuable info that they have on there.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 07, 2009 8:21 AM

Reply to Comment

Posted by MIke
August 07, 2009 7:33 AM

Beginning with the statement

"Hey everyone, there are many valid points being made here."

You are right, Mike, but do I detect a pseudo-commercial in your comment?

The following statement from Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids makes a very fair point:

"No one is suggesting that these products should never be allowed on the market; rather, like other consumer products, electronic cigarettes should be regulated to protect public health before they are permitted to be sold to consumers."

More ...

And that's the point that I have been making all along. In fact, Tobacco Free Kids agrees with you concerning adult decision making.

Mike. I was going to edit your comment to remove what I though is the commercial message part of it, but I thought about it for a while, and figured no harm, no foul.

Besides, everyone who has commented so far has a perfect record of being thoughtful of others; why sully that record?

BTW: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids makes several great points as well

Thanks for your comment.

VocalEk
Posted by VocalEk
August 08, 2009 5:28 PM

The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is correct on one point. Electronic Cigarettes are CONSUMER PRODUCTS, and as such they do not require approval prior to being made available. The Consumer Product Safety Commission exists to assist members of the public who complain of being made ill or injured by a product AFTER it is out on the market. The CPSC, not FDA, is the proper regulating body in this case.

The fact that this product has the unexpected (and extremely fortuitous) effect of enabling its users to give up smoking tobacco does not magically turn it into a medical device. Some people chew on toothpicks as a way to refrain from smoking tobacco. That does not turn toothpicks into a medical device.

From the American Cancer Society "Guide to Quitting Smoking":
"Lozenges that contain tobacco (Ariva®, Interval®), and small, pouches of tobacco (Revel®, Exalt®) are being sold as other ways for smokers to get nicotine in places where smoking is not allowed. The FDA has ruled that these are types of oral tobacco products much like snuff and chew, and are not smoking cessation aids. This means that the FDA does not have authority over them."

And if you believe that the "strictest FDA scrutiny" is a panacea for protecting public health, you may be unaware of a product called Chantix that was fully FDA-approved before being released to the public.

According to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices dated October 2008, a record number of deaths and serious injuries associated with drug therapy were recorded during the 1st quarter of 2008. Chantix accounted for more serious injuries than any other prescription drug, a total of 1001 new cases, including 50 new deaths.

Furthermore, the onerously long time the FDA requires before allowing a life-saving product on the market is also responsible for many deaths. See More ...

I don't believe that Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has "public health" as the basis for its call to have FDA pull the products off the market. They are well aware of the fact that there is zero evidence that these have harmed anyone. I also do not believe that they are unaware of the testimonials from over 10,000 people who have actually used the product that doing so has resulted in improvements in their health, in many cases verified by doctors. So whom do you believe?

The CTFK is also aware that quite a few of these same testimonials speak of not being able to function normally without nicotine (well past the 6 weeks considered the outer limit of being a withdrawal symptom that will disappear over time) and have stated that it is very likely that they will start smoking tobacco again if electronic cigarettes become unavailable.

Finally, the CTFK is aware that people are spontaneously becoming ex-smokers while using this product, and that there are still 40 some million smokers (many of them children) who have difficulty quitting. So where is the concern for public health? Or is that so-called concern a smoke screen?

By the way, if I have misjudged them, they are free to read through the testimonials users have left at the Electronic Cigarette Petition Site (More ... )

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 11, 2009 9:27 AM

Reply to Comment:

Posted by VocalEk
August 08, 2009 5:28 PM

Beginning with the statement:

"The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is correct on one point."


Please permit me to address your well-written and well taken points one by one:

“The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is correct on one point. Electronic Cigarettes are CONSUMER PRODUCTS, and as such they do not require approval prior to being made available. The Consumer Product Safety Commission exists to assist members of the public who complain of being made ill or injured by a product AFTER it is out on the market. The CPSC, not FDA, is the proper regulating body in this case. “

Comment:

I am being reasonable, Vocalek:

More ...

The FDA will turn out to be the proper regulating body in this case.

More ... %E2%80%99tRegulate/default.htm

The E-cigarette is not a household appliance (CPSC domain), and it does deliver an addictive drug, and the FDA controls its sale:

More ...

“The fact that this product has the unexpected (and extremely fortuitous) effect of enabling its users to give up smoking tobacco does not magically turn it into a medical device. Some people chew on toothpicks as a way to refrain from smoking tobacco. That does not turn toothpicks into a medical device.”

Comment:

Toothpicks do not contain a heating element that may or may not be dangerous, depending on the materials used for manufacture.

The effect of smoking cessation is not unexpected if the nicotine concentration in the juice ranges from 16 to zero milligrams.

If an e-cigarette walks and talks like a medical device, the FDA will view it as and expect it to be safe and effective as a it as a medical device.

Since toothpicks are not impregnated in any way with nicotine and toothpicks contain no electrically operated heating devices and no medium, such as ethylene glycol to inhale, toothpicks are OK, and I bet that a tube looking like a cigarette or cigarette shaped candy would also be OK, minus the nicotine and other potentially problematic parts.



“From the American Cancer Society "Guide to Quitting Smoking":
"Lozenges that contain tobacco (Ariva®, Interval®), and small, pouches of tobacco (Revel®, Exalt®) are being sold as other ways for smokers to get nicotine in places where smoking is not allowed. The FDA has ruled that these are types of oral tobacco products much like snuff and chew, and are not smoking cessation aids. This means that the FDA does not have authority over them."

Comment:

Ariva is a tobacco product and as such, the FDA will regulate it.

One study concludes that all of these products, including pure nicotine are the lesser of the evils. However, more studies have to be done and it is clear to the authors that the substances should all be regulated.

More ...

“And if you believe that the "strictest FDA scrutiny" is a panacea for protecting public health, you may be unaware of a product called Chantix that was fully FDA-approved before being released to the public.”

Comment:

I am not unaware of Chantix:

More ...

According to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices dated October 2008, a record number of deaths and serious injuries associated with drug therapy were recorded during the 1st quarter of 2008. Chantix accounted for more serious injuries than any other prescription drug, a total of 1001 new cases, including 50 new deaths.

“Furthermore, the onerously long time the FDA requires before allowing a life-saving product on the market is also responsible for many deaths. See More ...

Comment:

Whether certification is public or private, it will have to undergo close public scrutiny,

What one has to be aware of is the propensity for a group of drug companies to develop a subculture over time of emphasizing profit over people:
More ...

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 11, 2009 9:28 AM

Reply to Comment:

Posted by VocalEk
August 08, 2009 5:28 PM

Beginning with the statement:

"The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is correct on one point.

Continued:

“I don't believe that Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids has "public health" as the basis for its call to have FDA pull the products off the market. They are well aware of the fact that there is zero evidence that these have harmed anyone. I also do not believe that they are unaware of the testimonials from over 10,000 people who have actually used the product that doing so has resulted in improvements in their health, in many cases verified by doctors. So whom do you believe?”

Comment:

Then why not have companies do what Manufacturer, Ruyan, is having done in New Zealand?:

More ...

More ...

More ...

It is not too far afield from the type of testing that the FDA might require.

“The CTFK is also aware that quite a few of these same testimonials speak of not being able to function normally without nicotine (well past the 6 weeks considered the outer limit of being a withdrawal symptom that will disappear over time) and have stated that it is very likely that they will start smoking tobacco again if electronic cigarettes become unavailable.”

Here’s one persons view about CTFK’s policy persuasion:

“Unfortunately for public health, CTFK and other anti tobacco groups that advocate the Philip Morris backed FDA legislation also oppose the marketing of any less hazardous smoke free tobacco/nicotine product to smokers, except for the marketing of nicotine gum, lozenges and patches to smokers as a way to quit smoking (as most of those anti tobacco groups receive lots of funding from those drug companies). These groups are likely to urge Waxman and Kennedy (or Kennedy’s successor) to alter the legislation to either ban products like the e-cigarette, or to ban most of their ability to market to smokers.”
More ...
Finally, the CTFK is aware that people are spontaneously becoming ex-smokers while using this product, and that there are still 40 some million smokers (many of them children) who have difficulty quitting. So where is the concern for public health? Or is that so-called concern a smoke screen?

Comment:

Are you now terming the E-cig a cessation product to make a point?

By the way, if I have misjudged them, they are free to read through the testimonials users have left at the Electronic Cigarette Petition Site (More ... ).

Final comment:

I am neither for nor against the E-cigarette. However, public safety is a paramount concern for all consumers involved. If all manufacturers follow in Ruyan’s footsteps, fostering a reasonable concern for consumer health, then I believe that regulation will turn out to be a relatively minor hurdle for manufacturers to surmount. We do not need a Chinese drywall adulterated Heparin, or other like incident to befall unsuspecting E-cigarette consumers. And we do not need a Digitek-type incident, either.

Heparin:

More ...

Digitek:

More ...

Thank you for your comment, Vocalek.

Posted by
August 11, 2009 2:48 PM

Dr. David Barron M.D. Chief of Staff, UCLA Santa Monica Hospital has a 2 part interview that has been posted on youtube, with only 51 views at the time of this posting, that talks about the effects of nicotine on the body and the other ingredients in the electronic cigarette. I recommend you watch this video before you make any personal decision either way regarding the safety of electronic cigarettes or the use of nicotine.

ladyraj
Posted by ladyraj
August 11, 2009 3:17 PM

I submit the evidence for injury when using the electronic cigarette is anecdotal and unconvincing. Rather, the lack of evidence for compelling side effects demonstrate the efficacy of the product. When one burns a normal cigarette the combustion process is obvious and produces a "burnt" smell. The wicking theory offered as explanation for the burnt smell from an e-cigarette may, at first glance, appear based in common sense. In reality the atomizer, once a build up occurs, will stop performing and therfore, will produce nothing to inhale. One could view it as a failsafe measure that protects the user.

As far as the addiction scenario for someone who doesn't smoke regular cigarettes or smokes very little...why would anyone bother to purchase the electronic cigarette? It is far too costly an endeavor for a light smoker and the break even point would be far in the future. For the light smoking group it would be easier and less expensive to simply smoke a product sold at local stores everywhere if one is so inclined. The attraction of the e-cigarette to a non-smoker is illogical and irrational and to date, unproven.

When dealing with issues of injury or harm one has to consider the individual differences in people and their perceptions. If one perceives the product as harmful, that is by definition, an idiosyncratic response. The same could be said for benefits derived from the product. In this case, the benefits appear to far out weigh the probability of harm. Thus, the harm alluded to remains unproven for the product.

DaMulta
Posted by DaMulta
August 11, 2009 3:23 PM





I think Cig Nicotine is different than E-Liquid. It may not be, but this video shows how Cigs are made. I think all people should watch this video.

I smoked about two packs a day for 15 years. I was never able to stop 1 day total.

I took up using E-Cigs about 2 months ago. I stopped smoking on the day it hit my mail box.

My breath is back, my smell is back, my taste is back. All things that non-smokers enjoy. In fact Cig smoke kills me to be around just like other people that have quit smoking.

Everything in E-Liquid is FDA approved for human consumption. Even the DEG that they always bring up is approved by the FDA at .02%.

What the youtube clip on how Cigs are made. There is a reason that they are so additive.

Vicks
Posted by Vicks
August 11, 2009 3:43 PM

This is a good discussion you have going here, with all sides being presented and very little posturing going on...thank you for that.

I am an E-Cig user - have been Since March 09. I've watched the legal drama unfold in various forums, web articles, news and televised reports, and private blogs....and have to question the why behind various government's heavy-handed approaches to this product...with several already banning the products outright, and more considering that action daily.

The FDA press release on July 22 is a prime example. They did some testing on a small sampling of the products available, and submitted the results to the media written in such a way that the media would immediately take an alarmist approach in their reporting - that E-Cigs have 'carcinogens' and an ingredient 'found in antifreeze.' in them.

The FDA did not offer ALL the available facts, and that's what concerns me the most. This is to be an impartial regulatory body, who's focus is the health of the general population. Why did they steer the media to this attack? Why all the hostility? The emotion? The heavy-handed fear-mongering tactics? Why the push to demonize this device - which, if you look at it logically, has the potential to solve the war on smoking, with all its inherent dangers and health risks?

The ingredient the FDA memtioned in antifreeze is Propolyne Glycol (PG)- which is used in a NON-TOXIC form of antifreeze. It is also used in theatrical fog machines (PG captures and surrounds water molecules to make the fog), and as the suspension medium in asthma inhalers, as well as a wealth of other products, ranging from skin care products to food products. It carries a classification of GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) by the FDA. Propolyne Glycol is NOT a dangerous substance.

Yes, they did find trace amounts of diethylene glycol (DEG). But, it was in a concentration of less than 1% in 1 of the 18 samples tested according to the FDA's report.
While this is a concern, and does suggest that the e-cig industry NEEDS manufacturing standards, you still have to compare that to the 4000+ chemicals in a commercial cigarette, 60 of which are known carcinogens. Personally, I'll take the E-Cig as the lesser gamble to my health.

As to the carcinogens in the product - you are going to find traces (and that's what they found, traces) in many different products, including wine, beer, bacon and nicotine-replacement therepy products, in comparable or HIGHER concentrations to what the FDA found in the E-Cigs.

Is the E-Cig 100% safe? I doubt it. But, I can't think of a single consumer product or drug on the market today that can lay claim to a 100% safety record...humans being what they are will find a way to make anything a potential hazard.

Do E-Cigs need industry standardization? Absolutely.

What I would like to see is the manufacturers and the FDA come together in a meeting of the minds, and hammer out a pact that allows these products to remain on the market (thus keeping the 100,000+ vapers free to remain tobacco-free), and address the concerns the agency has.

Will I see that? Right now, given the current climate - I doubt that very much. The only thing I'm certain of is that, thanks to my little E-Cig, I will never go back to tobacco again.

VocalEK
Posted by VocalEK
August 11, 2009 4:32 PM

From your mouth to God's ear. I would be delighted if the FDA stops claiming that this is a "medical device". Approval for a medical device requires completion of the entire years-long and expensive New Drug Application process.

This is a CONSUMER PRODUCT that is undeniably a cleaner alternative to smoking tobacco: No ugly yellow film, no butts, no smelling ash trays. It is certainly safer from the standpoint of fire hazard: No flame, no sparks. Safer for the bystander, plants, pets, and electronic equipment: No smoke.

I would agree with you that a reasonable way to determine ingredient safety of electronic cigarettes would be testing by an independent lab. Would you agree that it is important that the test results provide enough information to judge whether the substances detected are less dangerous, as dangerous, or more dangerous, than the substances in tobacco? And, for any substance that is not in tobacco, to give us some idea how many cartrdiges per day would need to be used before injury to health would result?

Telling me that there is potentially-harmful-substance "X" in my lipstick is misleading if they don't also tell me that I would have to eat 2000 tubes a day to take in enough of "X" to make me ill.

Allow me to claify my point about cessation. Electronic cigarette are not "smoking cessation" products. They are intended to be a substitute for tobacco smoking, much like Ariva or Exalt.

I believe that the reason FDA decided to leave those products alone and not label them "smoking cessaton aids" is because they realized that every time someone pops a pouch or lozenge in their mouth that equates to at least one less cigarette smoked. Smoking reduction, research shows, can lead eventually to cessation.

The fact that so many people have found electronic cigarettes to be an acceptable substitute for ALL of their tobacco smoking is a wonderful thing! Groups like CTFK should be overjoyed that there is one more tool available to help clear the smoke out of the air.

Instead, it looks as if such groups won't be happy until they manage to drive us all back to lighting up cancer sticks.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 11, 2009 4:39 PM

Comments:

Posted by Matthew Foshee
August 11, 2009 2:48 PM

Dr. David Barron M.D. Chief of Staff, UCLA Santa Monica Hospital

Posted by ladyraj
August 11, 2009 3:17 PM

I submit the evidence for injury when using the electronic cigarette is anecdotal and unconvincing.

Posted by DaMulta
August 11, 2009 3:23 PM

I think Cig Nicotine is different than E-Liquid. It may not be, but this video shows how Cigs are made. I think all people should watch this video.

Posted by Vicks
August 11, 2009 3:43 PM

This is a good discussion you have going here, with all sides being presented and very little posturing going on...thank you for that.

Posted by VocalEK
August 11, 2009 4:32 PM

From your mouth to God's ear. I would be delighted if the FDA stops claiming that this is a "medical device". Approval for a medical device requires completion of the entire years-long and expensive New Drug Application process.

Response to Comments:

Thank you all for posting your very thought provoking commentary. Since it speaks for itself, I will not add to it at this point.

Please note that I have the ability to delete any comment or to review and revise them. In the interest of fostering a fair exchange of opinion, ideas, and suggestions, I have not chosen to take those steps. The only reason that I might delete a comment would be due only to content that we all would not want to see or be reading.

keep the comments coming.

ladyraj
Posted by ladyraj
August 11, 2009 6:05 PM

The nicotine addiction theory has been popularized by the media and public health endeavors but has no basis in the medical/psychological field unless one wants to quit. The medical coding system (ICD-9/10) lists tobacco abuse/dependence when one seeks cessation therapy. A physician may ask about and record smoking incidence along with your blood pressure, weight, etc and advise you to quit but will not "code" you as an addict if you choose not to quit. Further, the pychological handbook of diagnosing disorders (DSM) does not contain the word addiction, the terminology is substance abuse/dependence. One may abuse a substance and never become dependent. To fulfill the criteria of dependent, one must use the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, which mandates that one's dependence must create a deficit in functioning in their relationships, workplace, etc. If there is no deficit, one is not dependent.

Using the more rather simplistic version of addiction/dependence could involve a range of human behaviors that people simply enjoy to engage in frequently. I enjoy walks after dinner and become restless when the weather doesn't cooperate in a timely manner. It affects me psychologically...does that mean I'm addicted? If I have walked a route 400 times, am I dependent on the route? I've seen numerous people at the gym who appear addicted to building musculature, does that make them dependent on the machines and weights? When does one cross the line in the sand from use, to abuse, and then on to dependence?

The use of the addictive and dependent terminology when paired with the e-cigarette could influence the outcome of any submittal for pre-approval to the FDA. This is rather odd since one could buy the drug nicotine via tobacco at any local store.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 14, 2009 5:38 AM

E-cigarettes in the News:

More ...



%3A%2F%2Fnews%2Egoogle%2Ecom%2Fnews%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3De%2Dcigarette%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF%2D8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwn&feature=player_embedded

ladyraj
Posted by ladyraj
August 14, 2009 2:23 PM

Thank you for your most recent post of the report on the electronic cigarette which appeared balanced and fair. It's refreshing to have professionals with an open mind and the integrity to present both sides of the case while protecting the public at large.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 14, 2009 2:30 PM

Response to Comment

Posted by ladyraj
August 14, 2009 2:23 PM

Beginning with:

"Thank you for your most recent post of the report on the electronic cigarette..."

Thank you, ladyraj.

Facts are facts and well reasoned comment and inquiry ensure that true facts will eventually surface; seeking true knowledge is usually a long and sometimes arduous process, but most will agree that it is well worth the time and effort.

Shan123
Posted by Shan123
August 14, 2009 3:57 PM

I'm very grateful to have witnessed this conversation. It's been a good one.

...And I've wondered a few times, Dr. Rossetti, if you had ANY idea of what you were in for after writing a simple blog post. :D

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 14, 2009 4:15 PM

Response to Comment:

Posted by Shan123
August 14, 2009 3:57 PM

Beginning with:

"I'm very grateful to have witnessed this conversation. It's been a good one."

Thanks, Shan123.

I'm pleased that the two e-cig blogs were able to blossom into quite a discussion. I am surprised by the number of responses, but not the overall excellent quality of the commentary.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 15, 2009 7:46 PM

Important news:

More ...

Shan123
Posted by Shan123
August 16, 2009 12:36 AM

Yeah, Dr. R., the vaping community has been following this suit very closely since it began.

As for those press releases from Action on Anything Resembling Smoking: John Banzhaf may as well be collecting a paycheck from Big Tobacco at this point, because if he gets his way a lot of vapers will be going back to cigarettes. And few if any of us had ever HEARD of "vaping Cialis" until he brought it up in his amicus brief. Since providing any form of Cialis without a prescription would break laws having zilch to do with vaping, he seems to be using his signature kitchen-sink strategy here.

I could rant for paragraphs about Banzhaf but will stop now in the interest of preserving my newly respectable blood pressure.

LaceyUnderall
Posted by LaceyUnderall
August 24, 2009 11:47 AM

Mr. Rossetti -

I just wanted to clear one thing up. Your article was very good however, the Smoking Everywhere brand electronic cigarettes do not offer 20 cigarettes worth per cartridge. The actual cartridge can only hold enough liquid for a maximum of 2-3 cigarettes worth (7-14 puffs per cigarettes worth of liquid based on smoking styles).

In your example, Utada was actually smoking the same amount (in regards to puffs) as she would have from tobacco cigarettes. Based on the study done by Health New Zealand, it is also possible that she was actually taking in less nicotine than she would have with her tobacco cigarettes.

More ...

I would also like to note one further observation: The electronic cigarette hardware is actually no different than any of the other vaporizers that are on the market for vaporizing tobacco. A user could easily remove the cotton wick from inside of the mouthpiece, soak tobacco in propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine and still use the electronic cigarette hardware. So if this particular vaporizer were to be classified as a "device", then this would set precedence to remove all other vaporizers from the market. A very slippery slope.

Have you looked into the Electronic Cigarette Association More ... ? The ECA wants to move the industry in the right direction and wants proper regulations and manufacturing processes in place and is willing to do this in conjunction with the FDA AND at their own expense.

Armand RossettiInjuryBoard Contributor
Posted by Armand Rossetti
August 25, 2009 8:28 AM

Reply to Comment

Posted by LaceyUnderall
August 24, 2009 11:47 AM

Beginning with:

"Mr. Rossetti -

I just wanted to clear one thing up. Your article was very good however, the Smoking Everywhere brand electronic cigarettes do not offer 20 cigarettes worth per cartridge."

Thank you for your comment. I guess that there are differing opinions concerning the equivalent number of cigarettes per cartridge; one website states the following:

1 Cartridge = Approximately 1 Pack of 12-15 Cigarettes

More ... %252dCigarette-Refill-Cartridges-%252d-5-PACK.html

And much seems to depend on the kind of satisfaction the e-cig vaper might desire:

"And although many sellers claim anywhere from 10 to 30 cigarettes per cartridge, we have found this to be exaggerated especially considering the last 60% of the cartridge is poor vapor. To get the best e-smoking experience, keep your cartridge full."

Notice that according to the paragraph above, if a vaper keeps topping off the cartridge, the same amount of liquid eventually gets used, and the number is 10 - 30 equivalent cigarettes (I am borrowing your link):

More ...

Since I am not a vaper, I am not qualified to comment as authoritatively as would actual e-cig consumers, and I will have to defer to you and others who are frequent consumers.

Regarding nicotine equivalents and slippery slopes in determining where a medical device label ends and an ordinary vaporizer begins; that's the FDA's domain, and, hopefully, we the people are free to comment on what the FDA might propose regarding device designations.

I desire the best possible outcome for all concerned.

Technocrat
Posted by Technocrat
August 30, 2009 10:25 AM

SAFETY:

Personal injury from Electronic Cigarettes is a tricky issue. Most people use common sense and compare them to regular cigarettes. By that standard they are 1000 times more safe.

Inhalation of propylene glycol has been extensively studied and considered safe. The same goes for pure nicotine. The only real concern are the flavourings. Most injury lawyers know about the butter flavouring Diacetyl which causes bronchiolitus obliterans when inhaled, and yet is perfectly safe to eat in large amounts (it's in margarine). How many undiscovered diacetyls are there?

But even this has been addressed by some E-Liquid manufacturers who have come out with 'pure' or 'clear' brands which only contain propylene glycol, nicotine, and water.

ADDICTION:

As a person who has studied addiction, the E-cigarette has some interesting properties. So much of a drug is related to it's administration as well as it's pharmacology. Regular cigarettes provide a very sharp 'nicotine spike' which is very similar to a crack cocaine spike. While e-cigs provide a more immediate nicotine absorption than nicotine gums, patches, and lozenges, they are nowhere near as rapid as normal cigarettes. Many e-cig users have spontaneously quit, or shifted into a less dependent behavioral pattern because of this. Some few wind up 'vaping' much more, while trying to get that 'nic hit'. For these few phycho-addictive types switching to a much higher nicotine E-Liquid (like 36-48mg/ml) helps a lot.

FDA REPORT

A lot of people have already pointed out the inherent flaws in the FDA report. In the E-cigarette community this has generated a HUGE amount of paranoia. The report seems almost deliberately made to mislead the public and demonize e-cigarettes. A lot of people who used to trust the government to keep us safe have, overnight, lost all faith in the FDA. It would be nice if the FDA enforced quality standards and did testing, but as it now, NOBODY who smokes e-cigarettes trusts the FDA to be an impartial advocate for consumer safety.

It will be almost impossible to get any company to submit to FDA control when they feel that the FDA is really supporting Big Tobacco (cigarettes) and Big Pharma (smoking cessation products) over the interests (and health) of the general public.

patty
Posted by patty
September 16, 2009 8:16 PM

Reading everything above one thing stands out for me. I am 51 and want to stop smoking. I started when I was about 15. It's time to stop. I'm doing my research and found myself here. If the e-cig has carcinegens, apparently it's better than the Marl Lites I'm smoking now. My problem is more behavioral. I can go a day without a smoke if I have to. Then that demon craving comes on... the phone rings, etc etc. I'd rather take the risk on an ecig, which I PLAN on ordering than continuing a life as a smoker. The FDA and most of the nay-sayers, in my opinion, are having their feathers ruffled. They want all smoking to stop, cold turkey (forget that). They don't understand the addiction to nicotine (excuse me??? where is the rehab for addiction to nicotine.. but everyone applauds celebrity morons for their odd addictions). They want us to smoke ourselves to death, but, OMG, not in their presence. How many times have I heard non smokers say "let them smoke themselves to death". Smoking is not criminal, it's an addiction and now MAYBE we have a way out. I've had drunks in a bar tell me I'm killing myself. I've said it for 15 years now, you can do anything on the planet, cheat, steal, lie.. but DON'T SMOKE. This may be my way out. The FDA is concerned because they don't have their hands on it so they can't get their way around it:: ie: the drug companies make patches, chewing gums, etc. which never worked for me because they don't simulate the act of smoking. This does. And the drug companies pay the FDA and lobby their products thru. This cigarette produces no more than Nicoderm, of bad nicotine by products. But there is no lobby so that's the end of that. Apparently someone in Japan developed the technology or China so the FDA is up in arms.. I think that this product will help me. I'm sorry but I'm not on heroin or coke or oxycontin(?) or a drunk or a child abuser.. All of whom get coddling. I smoke and I want to stop. This one thing comes, the light at the end of the tunnel, and the FDA throws stones in the path??? WHY? It's all about the money and the drug companies because they didn't think of it first.

Comments for this article are closed.

Subscribe to InjuryBoard West Palm Beach

InjuryBoard West Palm Beach RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Injury Board West Palm Beach is brought to you by Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, PA (866) 735-1102 Ext 700 www.searcylaw.com
google
Personal Injury Lawyers Serving: Nationwide practice, including West Palm Beach, Palm Beach, Belle Glade, Boca Raton, Boynton Beach, Clewiston, Delray Beach, Fort Pierce, Greenacres, Hobe Sound, Jupiter, Lake Worth, Okeechobee, Palm City, Port Saint Lucie, Riviera Beach, Stuart
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 [ Show Map ]
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address