E-Cigarettes Bring Smokers Back Inside, For Now
npr.org
npr.org
Electronic cigarettes should be left the hell alone. I've never seen a more successful smoking cessation tool. Trying to heavy-handedly 'regulate' them so they aren't as easy or affordable to use will only ensure that people keep smoking regular cigarettes. Of course, the more paranoid side of my brain reminds me that a lot of tax revenue comes from old fashioned cigarette sales, and perhaps governments will want to protect those revenues.
My ex-boss started smoking again after he discovered them. Guy puffed it like he was in a noir film, blew the vapor all over the place. They most definitely have a smell, and I'd often end up stinking of it when I got home from work.
We should. Diacetyl is quite dangerous to inhale.
And Diacetyl really is quite dangerous.
I'd rather err on the side of personal freedom, especially when those trying to decide how we live our lives may have an agenda. That agenda could often even be promoting a different industry's interests, for example banning internet poker was heavily pushed by the brick and mortar casinos.
Ha. You wish.
And in any case with diacetyl and e-cigs, you are not making your own choices, you are forcing everyone near you to inhale those things.
I would be stunned if this were not going on.
This is actually a great opportunity for the tobacco industry to turn a new page and shed its current image. More so if it definitively turns out that the exhaled vapor of e-sigs are not harmful to others and the user.
Should that be the case, and it'll take a while for that to be proven (AND if that's actually the case), and the marketing is done properly - the tobacco industry could go from reviled death dealers to the same societal image Starbucks has (to be blunt: providers of tasty psychoactive chemicals generally considered safe in moderation).
They're surely only getting involved in the e-cig market for defensive reasons. I could certainly see them lobbying behind the scenes to slow the market down, if not kill it entirely.
At the end of every year, the government sort of lists its plans for the year. The past two year, the FDA has said that they would "deem" ecigs in April and get the ball rolling toward regulation but it hasn't happened yet.
Ecigs are a threat to ineffective methods of quitting smoking like patches and gums, so big pharma initially got behind total prohibition. The FDA lost in court on ecigs being medical devices, but the ruling only technically applies to the one company involved, so customs still seizes shipments of equipment coming in from China. Adoption is still growing rapidly, witht he total market in the US this year projected to double to over $1 billion.
Big tobacco has now started to enter the market. Swisher Sweets has a brand of ecig. Lorillard bought a major player called Blu and Reynolds is poised to enter at some point. Altria/Phillip Morris hasn't done much yet, but all of these companies are also marketing products they hope to get the classification "reduced exposure" and "modified risk" such as wood sticks coated with tobacco goop and candy-like lozenges.
A lot of ecig companies are tiny and scared of burdensome regulation which will put them out of business.
b- they almost certainly harm people around you although the harm may be less than that of secondary smoke.
c - your last argument obviously does not apply to the present situation. If you ban e-cigarettes in places where cigarettes are already banned, then this ban would not cause an e-cigarette smoker to start smoking ordinary cigarettes. In fact, the contrary is true -- if smokers can smoke e-cigarettes in places in situations where they cannot smoke ordinary cigarettes, that very well may result in an increase of smoking.
You can smoke your e-cigarettes in places and situations where cigarette smoking is allowed.
Not that I mind if their use indoors is banned… but I find this claim interesting because it contradicts the (admittedly little) evidence I've seen.
If you're looking to avoid even trace amounts of nicotine, staying away from smokers isn't enough. You should probably avoid eating anything in the nightshade family (e.g. eggplant, tomatoes, potatoes, and peppers). It's worth noting these foods contain other toxic alkaloids in low doses too—other parts of the plants with higher concentrations are inedible.
The relevant question here is this: is exhaled vapor from nearby e-cigarette users a significant health risk? How does it compare to other environmental hazards?
As another poster said, we know that nicotine is harmful within its own right, so if e-cigs are throwing it out into the air in unknown quantities that is worrying.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-study-of-ele...
>> Note also that this is an independent study which was not funded by any electronic cigarette company. The two funding sources were the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland and the National Institutes of Health. This adds objectivity and credibility to the work.
The results of this study are close to the evidence from studies funded by ecig companies, making those all the more credible too.
Ecigs aren't even as bad as peanuts because what is in them will never cause some sort of severe, instant reaction like to a person with nut allergies.
We know what is in this stuff. We can go far on the side of erring on caution and extrapolate from how much nicotine is in the liquid and how much people run through in a day, how much nicotine is being put into the air. I have studied this subject extensively. I know the research on how much nicotine gets absorbed into the lungs versus now much escapes. I know how much air a person cycles through breathing in an hour. I know that others are not "being drugged" by nicotine.
You are just a dishonest fearmonger. The few dangerous things that have been found in ecigs (stuff like acetaldehyde and formaldehyde) can be compared to the cancer risks from the other components of tobacco smoke as well as other carcinogens and chemicals which pose a cardiovascular risk.
See J Fowles and E Dybing. Application of toxicological risk assessment principles to the chemical constituents of cigarette smoke. Tob. Control, Dec 2003; 12: 424 - 430.
By far the worst cancer causer in tobacco smoke is 1,3-butadiene. This will be exhaled in smoke and also given off in "sidestream smoke" (the cigarette sits there burning). There is no smoke at all with ecigs and no sidestream vapor, because the vapor is triggered by the user and goes only into their lungs first.
1,3-butadiene is given off from things like having a campfire or BBQ-ing. Should we ban campfires and BBQs? What people are being exposed to is worse than ecigs.
Is it peer-reviewed?
B - Got some proof that secondhand vapor causes harm? Here is reference to a published indoor air quality study showing:
"Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure."
There's more and more very positive research all the time. Ecig users shouldn't have to prove that it is 100% safe. It is pretty clearly far safer than smoking and a great benefit to the health of people who are unable or unwilling to quit.
C - "that very well may result in an increase of smoking."
Pure speculation on your part. "
The smell is disgusting, regardless of what the flavor is. The flavor is only there to try to mask the underlying smell, which is gross. Your assumpions about nonsmokers liking the smell are pretty baseless. Everyone i have talked to about it has disliked it intensly.
It is very nice that ecigs appear to be safer than cigarettes, but that does not mean i should be forced to breathe them. I already do not smoke.
No, this was done by researchers using established methods for assessing indoor air quality. It's pretty obvious that you are just a dishonest person, didn't crack open the research and just generally know nothing about this subject.
"The smell is disgusting, regardless of what the flavor is. The flavor is only there to try to mask the underlying smell, which is gross."
Nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerine and water are all basically odorless materials. The last 3 are ingredients in the types of fog machines used at concerts and also common food ingredients. You are either imagining things or lying.
>Your assumpions about nonsmokers liking the smell are pretty baseless.
Most people don't notice at all. I discretely but not secretly vape in restaurants/stores/etc. and have never once been told to stop doing it in over two years using ecigs. I have never once been told that someone was offended by the smell.
No, it's definitely noticeable, but currently rare enough that a lot people won't be able to identify it.
As others say, the smell is far weaker that after-lunch booze, deodorant, BO, auto exhaust, bad breath, leather, hand sanitizer, and to a vegetarian, meat.
Sure, you could sniff your coworkers to discover who ate corned beef, and who vaped at lunch, but neither is at the level that we'd call it offensive in an office setting.
The only reason people are complaining is because cigarettes are bad and by extension everything related to everything related is bad, and people love jumping on the bandwagon.
Coworkers are starting to smoke in small meeting rooms where you don't normally get the smell of lunches etc. It DOES smell unpleasant, though it's not nearly as bad as cigarette smoke. Fortunately my coworkers are gracious enough to shower every so often so I can't say that BO is a regular problem.
Why is "harm" needed? If I am next to you I'm not interested in you forcing me to take drugs. I don't need to demonstrate harm, I just don't want you to send me drugs.
At least put a filter on the thing so no nicotine comes out of it (i.e. you breath both in and out of it, through the filter).
You have got to be kidding me. Whatever amount of nicotine you are getting from secondhand vapor is TINY. You are not getting drugged. It has no psychoactive effects or addictive potential at that level.
Since that whole line of thinking is ridiculous, we consider harm. Being near cooking food, say your neighbors having a BBQ, exposes you to volatile N'-nitrosamines, similar to one of the groups of compounds shown to have some carcinogenic potential in smoking.
These types of things are not found in ecigs (or only in incredibly tiny amounts). There is no burning, carbon monoxide, etc. You are getting more harm from stuff like cleaning product fumes or other air pollution from cars/industry.
We need more reliable data.
In general e-cigs should be restricted until they're proven safe. Basically treated like any other kind of cigarette. It is clear from this thread and elsewhere that smokers have zero consideration for others.
Ecigs are clearly not "100% safe" but the same goes for the food you eat and all other types of things you put in your body. it isn't about proving 100% safety. It's about showing a vast reduction in harm for people who are addicted to and dying from smoking.
Speaking of "zero consideration for others", anti-nicotine zealots take a quit or die stance. You would rather ban ecigs and force people back to smoking?
Because hristov said "they almost certainly harm people around you", which is false. There is no "almost certainly" about that claim.
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/nicotine-in-vegetab...
"no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer "
> While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture.
It then goes on to say:
> Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases.[76] Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[77]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[78][79] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).
That's unfair actually. I really rather like the myriad of scents he has. Mint, butterscotch, raspberry. I kinda wanted to try it, but I don't actually smoke anything.
b? maybe? The smoke is the issue, really.
c? maybe? At least the smoker I know deliberately pushes down the nicotine ratio he gets from his supplier.
You can argue for erring on the side of safety, but the level of safety you are talking about is unreasonable. What we can say going in, what we know about how cigarettes cause cancer, suggest to us strongly that e-cigs are safer. It is reasonable to act that that assumption, even if there is a possibility that something horrible would be revealed about them later.
E-cigs do not harm people in anyway, shape, or form. E-cigs are simply water, nicotine, and flavoring to make them taste a certain way (cherry, coffee, vanilla etc).
I stupidly started smoking at 16 and now at 21, they really have helped me quit. I am all for smoking (electronic or otherwise) outside to respect other people's "airspace", but they are not harmful at all. End of story.
The only harmful "second hand" aspect of them could be people inhaling small doses of nicotine vapor.
There is absolutely nothing, in this ingredient list, that is harmful to humans on the level that actual cigarettes (or rightly named, "cancer sticks") are. The glycerin the is only cause for concern, but glycerin is used in so many different products that it is healthy enough for human consumption.
"E-cigs are NOT just water, nicotine, and flavoring" Ya, they basically are just that.
Not 'few' complaints. NO complaints. In 2+ years of regular use. The two cases where I've been asked to stop using them were from people who felt it was their job to do so, not because of any complaint.
>they almost certainly harm people around you although the harm may be less than that of secondary smoke.
[citation needed, really. I'd love to see it.]
>if smokers can smoke e-cigarettes in places in situations where they cannot smoke ordinary cigarettes, that very well may result in an increase of smoking.
I think you're confused about what electronic cigarettes are. Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke, so it's impossible for them to increase 'smoking.' They produce vapor. It's like saying that the steam rising from your coffee cup is 'smoke,' so all people with coffee should only be able to drink coffee in places where smoking is permitted.
misguided progressive ideal. (Ironic they choose that label for themselves, no?)
But the reason cigarettes are banned is because they affect other people.
American rules/regulations aren't built around the concept of proving something is safe. Tobacco is different from the norm because of how much evidence exists to prove its harm
It is at least plausible that the risks of e-cig users around you is negligible, especially compared to your dry-cleaned suit, the air quality of the airplane you flew on, the radon in your house, etc.
In that context, don't you find it curious that the negative reaction is so strong against the idea that people who enjoy a nicotene buzz can have their cake and eat it, too?
To me it doesn't look like caution. It looks like a bluenose impulse to control people for what is likely to be no good reason, and is well below the threshold for regulating access to other psychoactive substances.
Now if people really are motivated only by protecting other people from a significant new source of risk, then I'm sorry. But, man, it sure looks like e-cigs are a touchstone for revealing prohibitionists.
For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how they are doing something - a bit like the pre-flight security theater.
The fact that we have a technological replacement better than the original (ie no tars or carcinogens) while giving the sample pleasure (nicotine, inhaling) should be ground enough to change the laws in the other direction - ie allowing e-cigarattes wherever they are possible..
But this is not about logic. The new habitus sees tobacco as low class and bad http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-and-h...
Why I am not surprised the government will fight against it, regardless of the scientific facts or the right to pursue happiness?
EDIT: From the original article "The FDA has said that it plans to assert regulatory authority over electronic cigarettes" - just like every government agency looking for a piece of the cake, while consumers will suffer.
There is another good article on e-cigarettes on http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573986-world-should-...
"Smoking tobacco is the most dangerous voluntary activity in the world. More than 5m people die every year of the consequences. That is one death in ten."
Want to save human lives? Don't regulate e-cigarettes- in fact, it might be a better idea to GIVE THEM AWAY in poor countries instead of spending the same amount to procure them with expansive drugs that may help at best a hundred people per year (cancer drugs are expansive, and except in specific cases their efficiency is limited. we still have a lot to learn).
Since people will consume tobacco products anyway, we might as well give them the good stuff that won't give them cancer, our last technology - that's e-cigarettes, instead of exporting the old foul smelling plant.
We are talking about the potential to save 5'000'000 humans every year.
It should be about helping people, not just subsidizing the agricultural industry or making feel good but ultimately counter-productive actions.
But reason won't prevail. It will be a sad thing to watch.
EDIT2: I originally said "it is about", which is an incorrect formulation since it could be interpreted as a statement on how current systems work. It was ironic, and may not have been very clear.
sure, ideally. In reality going by the metric of dollars spent -> outcomes it is far and away about feeling good.
There are many things in the health system I find highly illogical, and sometimes I use irony instead of simply presenting the case and possible solutions.
There are in fact various metrics to which programs should be judged against; while they differ by country trying to save the as much years of life at the lowest possible cost is usually well accepted.
"The companies are not allowed to market them as smoking cessation devices because that would put them in the category of other nicotine replacement products that are regulated by the FDA, such as nicotine gum or patches," Felberbaum says.
Certianly this slows down their adoption. This is his point: FDA restricting something harmful without regard for harm reduction. This kills people, in the net.
That’s the issue. Surely, if those cigarettes are marketed as smoking cessation devices they should have to follow the same rules as other such devices have to follow.
As to why those devices are more tightly regulated? Well, duh. They claim to have a medical effect. If you want to claim that you better, well …
This seemed perfectly clear from this passage in the article. You seem to be quite confused about it.
If they are being deterred, then maybe the FDA regulation is too burdensome.
I’m sorry, but if you want to claim that something is a smoking cessation device you better back it up with solid evidence. If you don’t want to, you can still sell it, but don’t claim it’s something you didn’t prove it is.
Which kind of supplements your point. Really nicotine is pretty scary stuff if it's isolated.
Smoke is definitely worse, don't get me wrong. But it should be illegal for a 3rd party to force someone to take a drug.
I do sympathise with the smokers here, who see e-cigarettes as a compromise, but ultimately it's a compromise that non-smokers shouldn't have to make, because like everyone should have the right to do to their own body what they want, they also don't have the right to passively drug someone else and impose your own choices on other people. That's not okay.
However, if you were wondering, it has not been proven that tiny amounts of vapor are more dangerous than tiny amounts of deodorant. In fact it seems likely that both have negligible effects on health.
E-cig makers, at least, can argue that e-cigs are a form of harm reduction. Maybe energy drinks, too, if they keep you from falling asleep at the wheel, but that's more tenuous.
E-cigarette proponents say that because e-cigarettes do not burn anything, they are safer than cigarettes. That is probably true, but safer does not mean safe. They are definitely not safe as the main substance they are intended to deliver -- nicotine -- is itself unsafe.
So until there are studies that show that there is no danger to others in the environment all smoking bans should apply to e-cigarettes.
Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[77]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[78][79] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[80]
It may not cause cancer directly, but it does sound pretty toxic and does help cancer growth. There might be a "safe" upper limit at which inhaling secondary smoke from e-cigarettes would have an insignificant impact, but we need more studios.
[2] Effects of Varying the Proportion of Protein in the Diet. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/9/3/162.short
[3]The combined effects of dietary protein and fat on 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced breast cancer in rats. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/114/7/1213.long
Given that anabolism can promote tumor growth, do weightlifters tend to have more intense bouts of cancer?
[1] http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/71/13/4484.full
As to the second point the best answer I can give you is maybe. Unfortunately different cancers have completely different mechanisms, while high protein may be bad for mammary cancers it might be good for bone cancers. So it's really situational.
Edit: but seriously, thanks for the response. I think a lot of people are torn by trying to make basic decisions like this, and making sense of conflicting findings is pretty frustrating. Seems like a lot of carbs is bad, though, so I'm going to go with that.
More research is needed but all the evidence so far points to e-cigs being safer than cigarettes for those who can not kick the habit. But the passive smoking impact is a very valid point and needs to be studied.
Here is reference to a study showing that nicotine did not promote lung cancer growth: http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-in-the-news.aspx...
All sorts of things we take in can "promote cancer growth". Nicotine by itself is so far from a carcinogen that IARC doesn't even investigate it as one. There are roughly 50 components of tobacco and tobacco smoke called the "Hoffman analytes" which are the carcinogens. There are studies showing the relative cardiovascular and cancer risk, and the worst carcinogens are produced by burning plant material. These are not present in ecigs.
Some studies which are dubious because of the choice of equipment and researchers not simulating the way ecigs are actually used have shown a handful of components way down the list of dangerous ingredients. Other studies have been done where these didn't even show up, but we are talking about things like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde near the level put out by smoking. If you compare the cancer risk of these to smoking, you are still looking at less than 5% of the cancer risk of smoking (probably under 1% really).
The main reason that nicotine "feels" significantly likely to cause cancer is its association with tobacco. But there's already a perfectly adequate explanation for the carcinogenicity of tobacco. So it's important to resist the affect heuristic[0] which makes us tend to find all things associated with tobacco "cancery".
In addition, it's extremely doubtful that you'd get any nicotine second-hand from someone using an e-cigarette.
It shows that the amount of passive vapor is extremely low. Though it should be mentioned that it was commissioned by flavourart, a major eliquid producer.
The lung cancer statistics I've seen usually for cig-smoking fall around 3 per 100,000 for second-hand smoke and about 50 per 100,000 for a half-pack-a-day smoker. Considering what's in E-cigs, the risks are, at worst, a very tiny fraction of these numbers.
So yes, for E-cigs, "For no health reason, but for governments to demonstrate their power and how they are doing something" is a very likely explanation. But consider the insane response to global warming, and what more should we expect?
Is it a regulation that stops the restaurant down the street putting asbestos and ebola into my morning coffee and muffin?
I use a eGo Twist/iClear16 (w/ iClear30 heads) at work, and CCTS/IGO-L at home. The variety of flavors are endless, and none smell up the office, my home, hands, or clothes. Even if they did stink as bad as regular smokes, who would really complain about smelling Watermelon, Pear & Honey, Ecto Cooler (yes!) or Swedish Fish when they come to visit me?
After switching, I don't: 1. Smell like an ashtray 2. Lose my breath walking up a few sets of stairs 3. Take several 15 minute breaks at work 4. Spend $300(!) per month 5. Have fears of emphysema and/or lung cancer in my future.
My doctor is happy with the results. So am I.
This is half in jest, but I used to be a smoker, and one aspect I really enjoyed was the whole ceremony involved with smoking. The habitual aspect of it (something to do when you're waiting for somebody, something to twiddle with...) was perhaps stronger than the physical addiction when I quit.
It's amazing how far the brainwashing have gone in regards to anything remotely smoking related. Otherwise sensible and thinking people throw out all sense of consideration, respect and balance and start repeating "Smoking is bad, smoking should be banned", no matter what the consequences are.
And when we are talking about e-cig it is very clear to me that none of the objections are about health or genuine care for those affected, at all. At best, the supporting arguments for that are severe exaggerations - which should be obvious with minimum of critical thinking.
The lack of odor is actually problematic. I was not able to quit a place before the inset of an asthmatic attack in a couple of restaurants because I didn't smell anything until it was too late.
I'm actually used to that (several substances do the same), but it's only in the last year or so that I increasingly attributed that to e-cigarettes because people feel "it's ok".
Even if I wasn't asthmatic, I would still be pissed as hell to be sniffing nicotine just for the addiction of somebody else. It's not a drug powder that you can contain and keep it to yourself.
>I would still be pissed as hell to be sniffing nicotine just for the addiction of somebody else.
Don't worry, even sitting right next to someone who is using one, you are almost certainly not "sniffing nicotine".
All that said, there's no reason to ban e-cigarettes. They don't smell, they don't make my eyes/throat hurt, they aren't obtrusive in any way, unless you're trying to inhale the other person's smoke as it comes out of their nose. As long as it doesn't bother other people, it shouldn't be banned, and e-cigarettes don't bother other people.
[1] http://www.info-electronic-cigarettes.com/images/ManWithEcig... [2] http://www.ecigsbuy.com/images/l/201211/13535904500.jpg
I used to have a shower after I got home, besides the one I took before going out, because if I didn't, my sheets would stink throughout all the week; and I wasn't even going to heavily crowded bars, just restaurants.
I quit smoking quite a while back, but I still had cheaters from time to time. I really think nicotine has a much more permanent effect on the brain than we are led to believe.
If you don't smoke, don't go near the stuff, but if you do, you really should try it.
Maybe you should show some consideration to others and smoke outside.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&q=...
I've never tried them, though there are a few different brands you can find on Amazon, some of which actually have pretty good reviews.
There's other issues, do they smell? Yes, some do, they have flavourings in that will impart a smell. However it's quite faint in a lot of cases, it bothers my girlfriend in the car but not at home. Is it anti-social? Depends on the social group you're in, I generally hang around with smokers (maybe there's some selection bias inherent in social groupings due to the smoking ban) and a couple of us have shifted to e-cigarettes (traditional style and vape style) and no one minds. I wouldn't use one in a restaurant but I would in a pub or nightclub.
Hopefully they'll avoid regulating them for a while, but there's rumblings of regulation on the horizon in the EU.
> "The FDA has said that it plans to assert regulatory authority over electronic cigarettes. And that could lead to them being regulated in the same way as cigarettes as far as marketing is concerned," Felberbaum says.
This is odd. For one, we know the health risks of nicotine patches, and we know the health risks of the alternative to e-cigarettes, which carries very large known risks. For that reason alone we should celebrate these little devices.
Further, what the hell is the FDA doing? I thought this would be for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Edit, some dates:
Since 2009 the FDA has had the authority to explicitly regulate tobacco too, not just nicotine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_tobacco_by_the_U....
Since 1998 the FDA has been allowed to regulate cigarettes as nicotine delivery devices: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846773/Szubin.ht...
It's also fair to request additional research into an inhalant version of a drug. I wouldn't want an FDA that immediately celebrates a product without properly researching it.
Also, we know that inhaling smoke is bad and that tobacco smoke is bad, but we don't know about hot vapor so much, let alone hot nicotine vapor. There is more research needed here and I look forward to it. It's pretty safe to assume though that it's safer than cigarettes.
Could this be used for ganja too?
If they are addicted then the industry failed at helping them quit and the government needs to force the industry to provide direct free assistance to quit. It's not a game where they should be able to keep making profit off known death.
They print it all right there on the box, and at the bottom of every advertisement (are there even still cigarette ads? I never see them around), and you can't complete school without being told over and over how dangerous they are. I think these days the cigarette companies don't even need to do anything. Cigs are there, if you want them they're easy to find, everyone knows what they do, some will still choose to smoke them.
It was too late. He spent more than a decade coughing up his lungs only to finally succumb to cancer, weakened by the steroids keeping him alive to the point where he broke his back picking up a gallon of milk.
It's called addiction for a reason. Not something people can do without a lot of resources and help.
Nicotine vaporizers have no scent that I've ever been aware of. I've had a couple myself, and they have found quite a bit of popularity in my neighborhood very recently. You can't even tell someone is smoking one unless you see them take a puff. As far as I've been able to tell, there is no scent.
I think people just need to have some common decency.
You said you still smoke. Smokers have a terrible sense of smell. You would have to ask a non-smoker if the e-cigs smell.
If you wonder: They do. Not anywhere near as bad as a real cigarette, but they do smell.
Or another analogy. It's like having a really bad headache, taking some aspirin, and getting a 'clear and lucid' head after it takes effect. Wouldn't it be better just not to have the headache in the first place?
Cigarettes are obviously bad and a stupid thing to do, but there are people (including myself) who genuinely enjoy them, we aren't just addicted and using them to get back to level zero.
I think long-term smokers have a permanently-affected brain, it will be interesting to see future studies.
This study was unable to detect any environmental contamination from nicotine: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/201...
"Among all, the most interesting aspects we observed was that nicotine was not detected in air during the e-smoking session, although liquids used for experiments contained it. On the other hand, 34µg/m^3 of nicotine were found during the smoking session."
I remember another study I'm having trouble finding that was able to detect some nicotine in the exhaled vapor using a different method (capturing exhaled vapor in a glass chamber), but at an extremely low concentration. Nothing I've found leads me to believe secondhand nicotine exposure from e-cigarettes is a significant hazard.
[1]-http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.7...
You and the other comment mistake it for an absolute judgment, which would be problematic, but that's not what the OP was writing.
Nicotine is an addictive, potentially toxic drug, with some possible beneficial effects, and some definite harmful effects. I'd like to be able to choose for myself whether I'm going to inhale it.
How is "I want to choose which drugs I expose myself to" an expression of the nanny state?
If you want to consume a drug in public, figure out how to do so in such a way that you don't share it with bystanders against their will. We already have patches, gum, snuff, chaw; if you really want to inhale it as a vapor, why can't you do that in private?
I wasn't able to find the relevant page in Google books, but I did see a snippet that seemed to say that some of the other chemicals in cigarette smoke may actually have a protective effect against nicotine toxicity.
Gosselin RE (1988). Clinical toxicology of Commercial Products. VI.ed Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins: 311-313.
I remember reading this somewhere about the usage of nicotine patches.
I wish I had the same right to not be exposed to agrotoxics, growth hormones and antibiotics from the meat, xenoestrogen present in all damn plastic and airborne lead from exhausts.
Maybe if the government really cared about well-being they would be regulating those, instead of wasting time with e-cigarrettes, no?
I'm all for regulating what you can inflict on those downwind of you, but if you called the city inspectors because you were worried about second-hand e-cig vapor they'd arrive in a car that produced literally thousands of times more known deadly toxins.
We definitely should start testing common things people use like deodorant, makeup, hairspray, e-cigs, etc. But if we do it in order of suspected toxicity you'll be waiting a while for those results. And if you read the list of things to worry about and get to where second-hand vapor is even visible on the cost/benefit scale, you will have to be living in a bubble.
I have yet to hear somebody complain about "the nanny state" who doesn't sound like a spoiled brat.
I suppose it's kind of logical.