The E-Cigarette Controversy

New articles seem to always get half the facts. First off, e-cigarettes can contain zero nicotine and just mimic smoking using propylene glycol (or vegetable glycerin), water, and flavoring. Therefore it can be a device that delivers no drug at all.

Secondly, propylene glycol is not just used in hand lotion, but also in toothpaste, medications, and numerous other products. PG is also recognized as "generally safe for human consumption" by the FDA.

Third; many e-cigarette companies are not marketing the device as a smoking cessation device, but rather as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes (example: More ... ). Tobacco cigarettes are a legal product in the US so why is is necessary that every other nicotine product, or device that mimics cigarettes, be an NRT?

Lastly, the idea that electronic cigarette companies are marketing to kids is baseless. Where is the proof of this claim that the public health organizations are making? There many be some unscrupulous companies who don't verify age before selling, but the majority are very careful to sell to legal age consumers. In fact, in order to become a member of the Electronic Cigarette Association ( More ... ), companies need to ensure their customers are of legal smoking age. The question to ask is why is The American Cancer Society, Tobacco Free Kids, and others against a product that produces no second hand smoke and contains no tobacco? The answer: Pharmaceuticals. Follow the money.

Money talking again - the tobacco industry and Big Pharm stand to lose millions if they stop selling their products because people change to alternatives. If carcinagens have been removed these products must be less dangerous, common sense dictates. Here in the UK, the money received from Tax revenue from tobacco products more than pays for the National health service - smokers die younger, therefore the government does not have to pay out pensions either. Tobacco sales are cost effective.

As to NRT, the presently available products have an appalling success rate of les than 2% after one year. If individuals want to see if the new electronic cigarettes help them personally they should be allowed to. We make no claims, but are conducting a survey in association with Tobacco harm Reduction experts and the University of which will run over one year and will publish the results.

Hey kids! Let's go use a Chinese product (and we all know what sticklers for safety the Chinese are) to flood our lungs with food coloring, propylene glycol, water vapor, and the cancer-promoter nicotine for 30 years. What fun!

And the manufacturers? As soon as the slightest medical trouble shows up, they'll disappear right back into the woodwork, retiring on your money.

Sue them? Every jury in the country will say, "You idiot!"

Good points, Gene! Let's just sell good old American cigarettes to the kids. We all know how safe they are.

Dumb point, Brad! Even if this were an either/or situation (it's not)--hell, let's take the devil we _don't_ know.

The situation is similar to that of the 50s-70s, when we thought filters or "lights" were safer. As we know now, they actually make cigarettes _more_ harmful.

The tobacco industry, of course, knew all about "compensation."

What does this industry know? What do you know?

The author writes in comments: "As you know, you don't even have to target teens for them to be discovered by that set. Word of mouth works nicely!"

Therefore, we must ban everything that can possibly become the fodder of word-of-mouth marketing by teens, correct? I don't see that happening.

As a practical matter, kids are not going to take up e-smoking. The kits run about $60 minimum via the internet... considerably higher from a mall kiosk. They would have to keep buying cartridges, blank carts and/or liquid, and would have to keep a wall charger set up (rather conspicuous) to charge batteries (as you're pretty much charging one battery while using another). There's also a certain amount of equipment maintenance, and not-so-occasional parts replacement (batteries stop holding a charge, atomizers die). In other words, using and maintaining an e-cig, plus obtaining and carrying supplies for it, would be almost impossible if one were attempting to hide it from parents. Really, it's far simpler for kids to obtain, and hide, cigarettes.

The FDA and the various anti-smoking groups are all WAY off base here. Thanks to my e-cig, I'm down to vaping zero-nic liquid after many years of smoking a pack a day of actual tobacco. Apparently they'd prefer I smoke cigarettes, or chew foul-tasting gum or inhale those nasty Nicotrol things, or take a pill. Nope.

It's amazing to me at people who comment on a product that they nothing about. As for children, children are naturally attracted to anything we deem "bad" or "not good for you".You can drop that as an excuse.
The truth of the matter is, stopping this product is nothing more than a stall tactic so that the BIG boys, RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris and the like, can produce a similar product. This is the first time anything has come along that has actually threatened the tobacco / cigarette companies.
We as a population have been screaming for our rights to not have to sit in a restaurant, bar, shopping mall and inhale second hand smoke. Guess what? Smoking Stinks! It's a nasty habit. Ashes everywhere, butts always littering the ground, cars and clothes stink and lets not forget kissing the ashtray tasting mouth.
We all talk about "going green" cleaning up our environment. You would think that if a product came along that eliminated at the very least, second hand smoke, we would ALL be jumping for joy, NOT trying to stop it because it was thought of and produced by the Chinese.
It's time to stop the prejudices and it's time for all you "save the planet" people to put your money where your mouth is. Stand up for products, regardless of your prejudices, that actually helps our environment.
As for the safety of this nicotine product, the alternative is what? Nicotine PLUS 4000 other dangerous chemicals. You choose! We will never have a totally smoke free America, we can however let those that choose to smoke, keep their bad habit to themselves!
Before you comment back to me about the intake of nicotine, I challenge you to read up on the product and the on-going independent testing that has been going on since 2007! If you are go9ng to comment, at least be educated on the subject.

I purchased an e-cig 'system' about 4 weeks ago, the Npro/Njoy. Within a week I was able to transition from about a pack a day of tobacco cigarettes to what amounts to 7-8 e-cig's a day - over a 50 per cent reduction in nicotine and a 100 per cent reduction in the toxic chemicals that come with the tobacco cigarette.

The online companies I've purchased from have all been straightforward in their advertising of the e-cig as an ALTERNATIVE to tobacco cigarettes. My personal experience leads me to believe that I'll reduce use even further over the next month or so. The change in habit and the results produced from the e-cigarette are significant. The elimination of "smoke" and all of the second-hand fumes is one of the most dramatic differences.

Caffeine and nicotine aren't a direct comparison but I find it rather hypocritical that caffeine can be legally self-administered at very high doses by consumers of all ages without restraint, constriction and most of all, social degradation while nicotine can not.

If nicotine is truly dangerous, use should be restricted and prohibited completely. But it's not. It's taxed.

It's easy to see the dichotomy there and the disingenuous and duplicitous politics at play. Nothing new, but hopefully reason will prevail and a level playing field established to better understand the facts and approach the topic honestly from all sides.