Despite the best efforts of anti-smoking advocates to educate, tax, and ban tobacco users out of their habit, millions of people continue to smoke and 400,000 of them die each year in the U.S. as a result. Such statistics may lead you to think that any safe smoking alternative would be cheered by public health advocates — and you'd be wrong. Enter e-cigarettes ( or “e-cigs”).
These amazing little devices mimic the look, feel and taste of traditional cigarettes, and deliver the dose of nicotine a smoker craves without most of the 10,000 chemicals contained within cigarettes. That means we have a way to save thousands of lives and the anti-smoking lobby is standing in the way without a shred of evidence in support.
According to the Boston Globe, 10 communities in Massachusetts have banned the smoking alternatives in workplaces, and a number of medical researchers have come out against e-cigs. Dr. Paula Johnson, a cardiologist and head of Boston's Public Health Commission called e-cigs devices that deliver a “toxic, addictive substance.” Authorities in Australia, where e-cigs are illegal, have also criticized their use because they don't help smokers quit nicotine and allegedly pose “a serious health risk.”
You'd think smart people using authoritative language would have evidence to back up their claims, but they don't in this case. E-cigs do indeed deliver nicotine, but without the cornucopia of chemicals contained in traditional cigarettes, nicotine isn't the monster it's made out to be. Yes, as Johnson claims, it is toxic. But overdose through cigarette smoke is unlikely, according to the University of Utah's genetics department. An e-cig user would need multiple nicotine sources to do any serious harm to their health in this regard.
But do the electronic devices pose a health risk in some other way? That's also unlikely. The first clinical trial that looked at e-cigs, published in BMC Public Health, concluded that “the e-Cigarette can help smokers to remain abstinent or reduce their cigarette consumption. By replacing tobacco cigarettes, the e-cigarette can only save lives. Here we show for the first time that e-Cigarettes can substantially decrease cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in smokers not intending to quit.”
The FDA's initial analysis two years ago of 18 e-cig cartridges found that the devices contain far fewer “tobacco specific nitrosamines and tobacco specific impurities” and “… at very low levels.” To give you a standard to measure this by, the chemicals found in e-cigs are comparable to those found in approved smoking cessation products, like nicotine gum and patches. Unless the FDA and other critics are about to call for bans on other smoking cessation products, what we have is a textbook example of hypocrisy.
But perhaps the hollowest argument leveled at e-cigs, as voiced by experts in Australia, is precisely what makes the devices so innovative: they're similar to the real thing. “Because e-cigarettes mimics [sic] smoking in both design and use, the ACT Health Directorate does not support [their use].'' The technically advanced rebuttal to this assertion goes like this: so what? If the goal is to prevent diseases and deaths associated with tobacco consumption, who cares if the alternatives emulate cigarettes? What's more, the evidence indicates that this is what makes e-cigs so effective. Part of breaking the addiction is addressing the behavioral aspect, the actual act of smoking a cigarette. In e-cigs we have an effective replacement.
So, if public health advocates are going to ignore the personal choice question — what and if people smoke is nobody's business but their own, after all – they need good science to justify their assault on e-cigs. The research so far reveals the exact opposite; what we have is a product that helps smokers drop their deadly habit and live healthier lives. Everybody should keep that in mind as this debate progresses.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Thanks for this info. Completely crazy. I started a website wallstreetvapors.com for the sole purpose of introducing smokers to e-cigs (I make no money from it) . Smoke free 3 mos. I stop smokers on the street to get them to try E-cigs. E-cigs will save lives and politicians are stupid to ban it.
Thanks for the feedback Cameron.
1 Replies
Well researched and a necessary look at a product unjustly challenged. The entire subject matter lends itself in similar fashion to the ignorance of people who dispute the acceptance of alternative medicine while taking medications that are mere band aids to a health issue. They demand scientific proof to treatments that are - in some cases - thousands of years old while supporting medicines that usually result in serious complications and major lawsuits. E-cigs sounds like a perfect answer to the millions of people trying to break their addictive cravings for nicotine. Nicotine has been proven more addictive than alcohol and hard core drugs. Follow the money to find out the reason. As you state; opponents have no substantial proof.
1 Replies
Okay it is obvious that a ban on this product isn't rational. However I do have to say that this product jumped out of no where with seemingly no regulations. Is it even illegal to sell this product to minors? Does it belong in the workplace? As a smoking cessation aid should it be regulated by prescription? Is it actually safe or are their unknown or even known dangers that consumers are unaware of. Are the sales tactics employed honest? ??s
11 Replies
9 Replies
8 Replies
But perhaps the hollowest argument leveled at e-cigs, as voiced by experts in Australia, is precisely what makes the devices so innovative: they're similar to the real thing
Exactly It says similar since when was almost good enough! It totally ridiculous and absurd to ban them!
2 Replies
1 Replies
When it comes to drugs, I'm an equal opportunity defender. If you want to inject cocaine into your eyeballs, that's your business. Just be prepared to accept the risks and take the responsibility if something goes wrong. All the money we put into incarceration should be put into treatment for those who request it. Just don't do it around me or get into a car if you're high on something.
Smoke in your homes, or e-cig or whatever it is. It's not the government's place to ban anything you choose to put in your body. Slap a warning on the label and let Darwin work his magic.
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
Some people believe that their concern about nicotine addiction should outweigh smokers' concerns about lung disease, heart disease, and cancer. They seem to think that it's healther for people to keep smoking than to switch to a reduced-risk alternative. Their logic escapes me. Great article!
One thing I would like to mention or bring to light that was not addressed in the article or in the comments is an E-cig wont help you quit or stop. Every since I started on my E-cig I have been more addicted then ever, but I prefer these over a traditional analog. Healthier alternative is better...
2 Replies
1 Replies
Because some of the deaths related to cigarettes aren't smoke related but nicotine related. The constant intake of such a strong stimulant (much stronger than caffeine) has disastrous effects on the heart, which is why, as is mentioned, cardiologists are coming out against them. In a way, e-cigs are more dangerous because the consumer mistakenly believes that they are somehow more okay, when they're not at all. While yes, they are comparable to smoking cessation products, the point of those products is you eventually stop using them.
9 Replies
3 Replies
1 Replies
The impurities in any e-cig are far less than the impurities in any regular cigarette. I have tried both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. Most of my friends are habitual smokers, and they smoke the lethal kind. I agree. Banning these safer alternatives is very counterproductive and will lead to more death among the smoking community. Whoever is in charge of this clearly needs to reassess their decisions, especially when lives are on the line.
E-Cigs is a viable alternative to other smoking cessation products. Not all people can use the patch due to an allergic reaction, the gum upsets stomachs, and the prescription pill also poses it's own risks. The question I have is who is driving the ban? If E-Cigs prove more successful or profitable than the alternatives, several companies could have a huge cut in their profits.
So lets see. Tobacco, an addictive and highly dangerous substance, is legal. E-cigs, a safer means of accomplishing the same goal (nicotine fix and an oral fixation), are held to be illegal in Australia and there are those attempting to make them illegal here.
Can I find any parallels? Oh, here's one. Alcohol, a highly addictive and dangerous substance is legal. Marijuana, an inexpensive and much safer means of accomplishing the same goal (a buzz and some time for reflection) is held to be illegal.
Marijuana was made illegal so that JP Morgan could sell his pulp forests in the form of paper (hemp paper is less expensive to make and lasts longer because it doesn't contain any tannin which destroys the paper from within). So who is trying to make e-cigs illegal and how do they stand to gain?
Knowing the answer to that question will give us the ability to stop them.
9 Replies
5 Replies
4 Replies
Good subject, and nice analysis.
Makes you wonder if there's more to the debate than meets the eye. Nah...couldn't be.
The need to control others is always a factor.
And the tomfoolery continues: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/some-say-vaping-e-cigarettes-is-worse-than-smoking-the-real-thing
"Touted as a safer alternative to traditional smoking, electronic cigarettes are supposed to give smokers their nicotine fix without the cancer-causing side effects of tobacco. But some have serious concerns that the battery-operated vaping devices may actually pose more dangers to users."
Please.
1 Replies
As a smoker I can appreciate the focus placed on substituting a healthier alternative while maintaining the behavioral habit. I find myself smoking more when I'm bored or have nothing to do.
Good article. I've been around smokers (and former smokers) for g-d knows how long, and every time you hear that the habit is just about as addicting as the nicotine. I'm with you: I cannot understand why there wouldn't be more support for such a healthier alternative that can solve BOTH parts of the addiction.
1 Replies
Yes, well written and good points here by Cameron and refreshing to see the more rationale, and less reactionary side of the electronic cigarette issue, so see www.ecigwerks.blogspot.com for more.