Read a recent media report from the FDA about electronic cigarettes? Please also read: Dis-ingenuousness of the FDA’s Press Conference is Concerning; FDA and Anti-Smoking Groups are Committing Medical Malpractice on a Massive Scale by Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health.

Electronic Cigarette Set with US Made E-Liquid with: 2 x Batteries 2 x Atomizers 1 x USB / AC Battery Charger 1 x Carrying tin 1 x Travel pouch 1 x 15 ml bottle of American made E-Liquid (approximately 300 cigarettes worth) 5 x Empty cartridges

Electronic Cigarette Set with Imported E-Liquid with: 2 x Batteries 2 x Atomizers 1 x USB / AC Battery Charger 1 x Carrying tin 1 x Travel pouch 1 x 15 ml bottle of E-Liquid (approximately 300 cigarettes worth) – choose from Propylene Glycol (PG) or Vegetable Glycerin (VG) base 5 x Empty cartridges

Portable Electronic Cigarette Battery Pack with: 1 x Portable lithium ion battery 1 x Cord to charge the battery pack from your computer 1 x Cord to charge the iPhones and iPods *Note: A USB e-cigarette charger is need to make this portable battery a e-cigarette battery charger, but luckily a USB charger comes with each Instead Kit! *Charge it from your computer, then charge an E-Cigarette battery up to 18 times on the go!

Many people wonder about who actually invented the electronic cigarette. Most don’t know, while others would claim it is Hon Lik from China. But in 1963, Herbert A. Gilbert filed his patent on a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette. Two years later his patent was accepted. The whole patent issue becomes somewhat complicated when you consider new technology and different designs, but what is clear is that 46 years ago Herbert submitted the idea of a smokeless cigarette to the United States Patent Office. Here is an excerpt:

“The present invention relates to a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette and has for an object to provide a safe and harmless means for and method of smoking by replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air; or by inhaling warm medication into the lungs in case of a respiratory ailment under direction of a physician.”

Herbert….I’m telling the FDA you said that.

View the PDF of Herbert’s Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette

Does this look familiar?

Herbert A. Gilbert even got a plug the December 1965 issue of Popular Mechanics for his new smokeless non-tobacco cigarette invention:

46 years later we now have the INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette

The question is ‘What kind of regulation?’

Some opponents of electronic cigarettes have stated they believe those who manufacturer and sell electronic cigarettes are trying to skirt regulation by the FDA. They ask “why don’t they just go through the normal NRT process like the nicotine gum or patch?”. I will answer these questions from the perspective of one company who sells electronic cigarettes.

We are NOT opposed to regulation. In fact one of the reasons we helped form the Electronic Cigarette Association is because we believe there does need to be a certain level of regulation. This includes, among other things, how it is manufactured, how it can be marketed, proper warnings, and most certainly keeping it out of the hands of minors. Some of these regulations are easy to implement and others will take time and help from an agency such as the FDA.

We ARE opposed to becoming an NRT. We strongly believe that the electronic cigarette should be allowed to freely compete with tobacco cigarettes on the open market. As an NRT, a product must be sold in pharmacies either with or without a prescription. NRTs are often more expensive than tobacco cigarettes. NRTs come with a stop usage date…..hence the claims of “quit smoking” which is really “quit using nicotine”. Placing these restrictions on electronic cigarettes create an unfair advantage for those who sell tobacco cigarettes.

I suppose the question is; if adults can legally choose to smoke tobacco cigarettes for as long as they like, why can’t they legally choose to use electronic cigarettes for as long as they like? For those who want to make claims such as “the electronic cigarette helps you quit smoking”, then they should do the proper clinical trials to prove that, submit it to the FDA, and then go sell it in pharmacies as a quit smoking product.

We applaud Matt Salmon, President of the ECA, in this Reuters article when he said, “We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be necessary, and we welcome that. Our goal, nevertheless, is to ensure committed adult smokers the freedom of a clear, better alternative and to prohibit sales to minors”.

Electronic cigarette debates often become heated because both sides feel very passionately. The anti-smoking groups claim this is too much like smoking and say “we just don’t know what’s in it”. The e-smoker says “If I can smoke tobacco, why can’t I vape an e-cigarette? I can choose what is best for me.” Considering the number of deaths tobacco smoking causes, it is no wonder everyone is so passionate.

In order to objectively look at the electronic cigarette, let’s remove the passion from the debate. Let’s consider a product that doesn’t kill people like burning tobacco. Let’s look at the soft drink business.

Soda A is made up of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (A being some of the worst chemicals imaginable and Z being the minor end of the scale) and has been on the market for a very long time. It contains caffeine.
Soda B just enters the market. It is made up of XYZ and also contains caffeine.

Details surrounding the argument:

Detail 1: Some public health organizations claim they don’t know if Soda B is safe, but want proof that it helps people quit drinking soda completely.
Detail 2: Some sellers of Soda B sell it as soda that you can drink just like Soda A.
Detail 3: Other sellers of Soda B claim it is healthy and that it does help you quit drinking soda.
Detail 4: Although there are no long term studies, to date Soda B has not harmed anyone.
Detail 5: There is proof Soda A can be harmful.

Based on this information, which route should the governmental agency responsible for regulating such products take?
A) Ban Soda B completely, because we don’t like people drinking soda
B) Ban Soda B until a pharmaceutical company proves it does help you quit drinking soda then give them, and only them, the right to sell it
C) Leave Soda B on the market, but crack down on those companies making unproven claims and also provide Soda B guidance to ensure quality control standards are being met.

Seems simple enough.

Why would a government agency have the right to pull a product off the market that has not harmed anyone while leaving one that has, on the market? Or why would a government agency want to determine intended use (to quit drinking soda), for all products containing caffeine, when other sodas on the market are given a free pass? And why would this government agency be in the right to remove something from the free market and hand it off to the pharmaceutical industry?

We don’t know the answer, but one other detail might be helpful:

Detail 6: The government agency for regulating such products, gets its funding from the pharmaceutical companies through an application process so that these companies can release their products on to the market without competition.

Hmmm… Which do you think they will choose?

On October 1st, we had reported in our blog post Tobacco Kills. E-Cigarettes, Not Sure. So Smoke Tobacco, Siobhan DeLancey, Press Officer at FDA, stated:

“There are no long-term studies on the health effects of just nicotine, minus the tobacco component. We know what smoking tobacco does to the body over the long term,” DeLancey said. “What we want to see are well-designed clinical studies. Personal reports are not enough,” DeLancey said.

A recently published study done in 1996 on the long term effects of inhaled nicotine is now available.

The Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Tronheim, Norway, found:

“Tobacco smoking has been reported to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, particularly of the lungs. In spite of extensive research on the health effects of tobacco smoking, the substances in tobacco smoke exerting these negative health effects are not completely known. Nicotine is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking as well as inducing addiction. For the first time we report the effect on the rat of long-term (two years) inhalation of nicotine. The rats breathed in a chamber with nicotine at a concentration giving twice the plasma concentration found in heavy smokers. Nicotine was given for 20 h a day, five days a week during a two-year period. We could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls. Particularly, there was no microscopic or macroscopic lung tumors nor any increase in pulmonary neuroendocrine cells. Throughout the study, however, the body weight of the nicotine exposed rats was reduced as compared with controls. In conclusion, our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation.”

Please note this study was not done on the electronic cigarette. The e-Liquid in an electronic cigarette is not pure nicotine. The e-Liquid is generally comprised of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, water, and flavorings. No long term studies have been done to show the electronic cigarette vapor is safe to humans. The product has been used worldwide for about 5 years and in the US for over 2 years. To date there are no reported serious side effects.

If you are now wondering about the propylene glycol, studies have been done on the inhalation of propylene glycol by the EPA and “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.” But again, please note that this was not a study of long term, direct inhalation of PG.

It is clear that in the current quest for public health, there is some serious misinformation going on. It appears that there is a clear lack of understanding between the differences of combustion and vaporization and that it is no longer the burden of the accuser to show proof that the electronic cigarette vapor is in fact dangerous.

One “public health” organization, who we will not name, hasn’t even updated their own research links page regarding scientific studies since 2005. Considering this, it is no wonder they are trapped in a bubble and not seeing the electronic cigarette for what it is and that is an alternative to something that kills over 400,000 Americans per year.

All we ask is that those in the public health sector keep an open mind to the technology, base decisions on the most current science available, and work with the electronic cigarette industry rather than against it, to make sure smokers have all the necessary information to make a decision for themselves.

The current studies and science on the electronic cigarette is not perfect, as it never is. And yes, more testing needs to be done. And yes, in the meantime this is an alternative to smoking tobacco which kills a good percentage of it’s users.

James Watt, who is the owner of Instead Electronic Cigarettes and the Vice Chair of the Electronic Cigarette Association did a phone interview with Bill Cunningham on his radio show today. The interview was specifically about those who wish to include the electronic cigarette in smoking bans. You can use the audio player below to listen to the interview or read the transcript provided:

Transcript of October 26th, 2009 Interview of James Watt, ECA Vice Chair, on the Bill Cunningham Show on News Radio 700 WLW

BC is Bill Cunningham
JW is James Watt

BC Let’s continue with more. Twenty-nine minutes after this hour, Bill Cunningham, News Radio 700 WLW.

All right. Now there’s a big story on the front page of USA Today today that says that electronic cigarettes are battery-operated devices that turn nicotine and other chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user, and they’re opening a new front in the tobacco wars because they give off no carcinogens, no secondhand smoke. And the battery-operated device is made up of a cartridge containing nicotine, flavoring, and chemicals. It turns nicotine, which is addictive, into a vapor that is inhaled.

Joining me now is James Watt, and he’s, like, vice chairman of the Electronic Cigarette Association. James Watt, welcome to the Bill Cunningham Show.

JW Thank you very much, Bill.

BC Well, let’s talk about this particular cigarette. About a half million Americans are now using these cigarettes. I’ve heard ads on our radio station that talks about these cigarettes. Talk about what they are and why they were developed.

JW Well, Bill, the–the electronic cigarette was–it’s been on the market for about five plus years now, and it’s been in the U.S. for, oh, about two and a half. Essentially, it’s an alternative to a tobacco cigarette. It works very similarly in the action where you bring something up to your mouth, you inhale, you exhale.

I think that the big difference between the two products is tobacco cigarettes use combustion, where the electronic cigarette uses vaporization. There are some very distinct differences between combustion and vaporization. So many longtime smokers find it to be a suitable replacement to their tobacco cigarettes.

BC So let’s say I’m sitting next to someone in a restaurant. I’m five–five feet away or six inches away. They’re right behind me, and they’re–and they’re using one of these electronic cigarettes. Would I even know it?

JW You would, provided you could see it. With most of the batteries on them, there is an LED will light up on the end when they inhale, and you will actually see the vapor come out. With that said, if you didn’t see the light, you didn’t see the vapor, you would not know they were using it. The–

BC Do they–do they smell?

JW No, they do not.

BC So a person that uses these–a lot smokers have smokers’ breath, and you can tell they’ve smoked because the clothes stink. That wouldn’t happen here?

JW That does not happen at all.

BC So is there any emissions at all that would rise the–raise the alarms of secondhand smokers?

JW Well, that’s a good question, an I’m certainly not a doctor or scientist that could get into specifically what’s in it. I can tell you many of the things that are produced specifically from combustion simply are not in that vapor. You know, the things that are typically produced with combustion, that’s where you get your arsenic, your carbon monoxide, your hydrogen cyanide. Those things are not produced through the process of vaporization.

BC So while the story seems to say that if you’re worried about secondhand smoke, that you’re not affected by it. Are you saying that’s true or untrue?

JW I’m saying that the electronic cigarette does not produce smoke–

BC No smoke at all.

JW –firsthand or secondhand.

BC So–

JW No smoke. It’s a vapor. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

BC And how expensive are these? If each cigarette has an indicator light, a battery, an atomizer, liquid cartridges, inhaler tips, how expensive is each cigarette?

JW Well, there’s a lot of different models on the market. I mean, there are disposable ones. But the vast majority are reusable, so the only thing you’re replacing is that cartridge with the liquid in it.

You know, typically, I think most smokers could see probably a forty to sixty percent savings by moving over to the electronic cigarette versus tobacco cigarettes.

BC Really? So you save money?

JW Absolutely.

BC Well, many states–California, New Jersey, most of the liberal ones, Oregon–are moving now to ban this. And the argument that was used for years is that you have to ban cigarette smoking in public because of secondhand smoke, because patrons would be affected, employees would be affected.

This cigarette undermines that entire argument, and I think those who oppose it are now showing their true colors because their argument is not that it produces secondhand smoke effects that are harmful. Their argument is that the person using it is harmful. So essentially, they don’t want to ban secondhand smoke. What they want to ban is cigarette use. Haven’t they showed their hand?

JW You know, I guess that’s to each their own in interpreting their actions. But I can say including the electronic cigarette with a smoking ban that does talk about, you know, specifically the secondhand smoke and the health effects of that, including the electronic cigarette in that seems unscientific, at best. You’re including something that just simply does not produce smoke.

BC And–and similar to MADD mothers, who started out trying to ban drunk driving, which is good thing, but now they’ve turned into a temperance organization. They’ve done all they can do with drunk drivers, punishing them disproportionately many times to other crimes committed by other criminals. They have now become an organization that wants to ban the use of alcohol, which is for years they said, “That’s not our intent.”

Much like the smoke–the smoke crowd, they began for years saying, “Secondhand smoke is terrible. It’s got to be stopped.” But now that the industry and now that the scientists have come up with a way to produce no secondhand smoke because there is no smoke–it’s a smokeless cigarette–now you have the left-wing activists that want to govern someone’s behavior and tell them they can’t smoke at all even though there’s no secondhand smoke.

So much like MADD mothers, to my way of thinking, they’ve demonstrated what their intent was all along, which was to ban tobacco use. And if they want to do that, James, go ahead and do it. Be forthright. But don’t use some other means or method to get to where you want to get, and then–and then what that detour was blocked by people like your trade organization, they now say, “Well, we don’t want people even to smoke smokeless cigarettes.” Why? Well, the answer is, “We don’t want you to do it.” And–and so it’s–it’s not–

JW It–

BC –it’s not about secondhand smoke. What it’s about is changing American behavior.

JW You know, some people definitely interpret it that way. I think it’s also important to understand that this product was not brought to the market by the tobacco industry. There’s no tobacco companies to my knowledge actually marketing the electronic cigarette, and there is no tobacco in it. You can have the cartridges with or without nicotine at all. There’s many users who will use the electronic cigarette with no nicotine. You know, so it’s–it’s not a tobacco product.

And I think that some of these organizations, it’s almost worse than–than the scenario that you mentioned simply because they don’t know about the electronic cigarette. There’s–I read through some of the proposals that they’re attempting to ban the electronic cigarette’s use in public places. It’s evident that they haven’t done the research to understand the product before they actually ban it.

BC Right. Well, James Watt, I’ve never smoked. I never would smoke. But I think American freedom means a lot, and if somebody wants to do this activity and no one else is affected by it, government has no role.

And, James Watt, do you want to give out a website for your group?

JW Yeah. Our website is ECASSOC.ORG.

BC All right. James Watt, good luck to you.

JW Thank you very much.

Smoking bans have been popping up across the United States for over a decade now. There is evidence on both sides regarding the harmful affects of second hand smoke. Some studies show that second hand smoke is detrimental to those around the smoker and some studies have shown that with proper air ventilation, second hand smoke is not an issue.

Smoking bans also present a great problem to the free market where these bans are literally dictating what a business owner can and cannot do in their own private business. These bans are beginning to filtrate into private homes and cars.

Smoking is an adult behavior. Just as drinking alcohol and engaging in sexual activity are considered adult behaviors. But as we have learned over the years, shielding children from being educated in making responsible choices once they become adults, only causes children to make irresponsible choices while they are children.

So what do smoking bans really accomplish? Do they really accomplish a greater sense of public health? Do they create a distaste for “big government”? Are smoking bans backwards?

Let’s look at the history of smoking bans, in a nutshell of course. At first, anti-smoking advocates were against smoking inside because of the compact conditions and poor air movement quality. Their concern was that non-smoking workers and patrons could not get away from second hand smoke as it does have a tendency to “sit” in the air. The argument was that workers do not have a choice of where they work so they need to be protected. So they fought to have all smoking pushed outside.

It is here that the private business owners began to feel an infringement upon their rights. The local government is now telling them that they can’t allow the use of a legal product in their privately owned, adult only business.

Smoking then went outside. And business owners reluctantly complied, setting up smoking areas for their patrons, outside and at their own expense.

Then, a few years later, these same advocates were tired of having to walk through the smoke to get into non-smoking establishments so they decided to go after smoking outside. Now, not only are private business owners lacking in their rights, but smokers were also being told that as a smoker, somehow their rights are not equal to those who are non-smokers.

Now, for the non-smoking advocate who may be reading this, please don’t get upset. We definitely see your side of this. Why should someone who has no desire to be engulfed in cigarette smoke have to put up with cigarette smoke? Why should parents have to run quickly through clouds of smoke with their children in order to get past the front doors of one establishment? And for those who have quit smoking and struggle every day to stay on the wagon, why would one want to be subjected to such temptation? Recovering alcoholics are lucky because if they don’t want to go into a bar, they simply don’t have to.

But what would have happened if the anti-smoking advocates had done the exact opposite? What would have happened if their original smoking bans were to restrict all smoking on public streets and only to allow smoking in private businesses that had proper ventilation systems and were physically marked on the entrance that this is a “smoking establishment”? Would we be having the heated debates today that we are? As for the workers in such an establishment; in America they have the right to choose where they work.

One of the arguments busting this “it’s for public health” stance is the electronic cigarette. The electronic cigarette does not use combustion so therefor, does not produce second hand smoke. It produces a vapor which is similar to fog machines that even Disney parades pump into the faces of children, infants and unsuspecting adults, in mass quantities, day after day. All current testing of propylene glycol vapors, which the majority of electronic cigarette vapor is comprised of, actually suggests that these vapors are harmless. Testing done by Dr. Murray Laugensen from Health New Zealand on the e-cigarette found, “Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO.” So why on Earth would these be included in smoking bans?

There is no evidence to date that the second hand vapor of the electronic cigarette can even be compared to the second hand smoke of a tobacco cigarette. Studies have been done since the 1940’s on propylene glycol vapors and even the EPA suggests that propylene glycol is inert with no carcinogen levels upon inhalation, hence it’s use in hospital air sanitizing systems.

The electronic cigarette is being including in smoking bans because the anti-smoking groups have decided that this isn’t about second hand smoke anymore. It is clear from the lack of research as presented on many of their websites, that they haven’t done any scientific research into the electronic cigarette and many do not even appear to have an understanding for the difference between combustion and vaporization. On one site, which we will leave as nameless for now, they state that cigarettes contain 4000 ingredients. No. Tobacco cigarettes do not contain 4000 ingredients. Tobacco cigarettes that are UNLIT contain 599 ingredients according to the CDC and the SMOKE from a tobacco cigarette contains 4000+ ingredients. There is a BIG difference between a lit cigarette and one that is sitting on a table, unlit.

There is also a big difference between vaporization and combustion. Did you know that if you burn incense in your home every day for 20 years, you are being subjected to many of the carcinogens and by products of a burning cigarette? It’s because COMBUSTION produces these harmful by-products which include some of the worst ingredients including carbon monoxide, arsenic, formaldehyde, and so on. VAPORIZATION from the electronic cigarette is not capable of making these types of by-products due to the low rate at which they heat… not burn.

The only reason to include the electronic cigarette in local smoking ordinances is because those against the electronic cigarettes usage in public are against nicotine or against the action of smoking. Both the use of nicotine AND the action of smoking are LEGAL. It’s the by-products of combustion created by a burning tobacco cigarette that should be cause for concern in regards to public health, not the action of smoking nor the intake of nicotine.

For those who are against the use of nicotine and wish to see nicotine prohibition, well, then stop forcing unsuspecting smokers to use the patch, the gum, and the nicotine inhaler and state your position for what it is; a complete banning of the substance.

For those against the action of “smoking”, be careful. Attempting to ban an action is a slippery slope.

And for those who are in this for public health, consider reversing the bans so that smoking occurs in places where adult activities take place. All places should be required to have proper ventilation and the technology is there. All workers should be required to acknowledge they understand they are working in a smoking environment. All establishments should clearly mark on their entrance that smoking is allowed. This reduces the amount of cigarette butts on the street, reduces non-smokers from having interaction with cigarette smoke, and the private business owners are able to continue offering the type of establishment the free market dictates. THIS is a win win smoking ban for all.

What does Ron Paul have to do with the electronic cigarette you ask? Well, if you are an avid reader of our blog, you probably came across Right To Choose E-Smoking and Right To Vape. These posts demonstrate the issue at the heart of the debate over electronic cigarettes; the freedom for smokers to choose an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. Let’s be honest with ourselves, if the real issue was about health then tobacco cigarettes, which kill about 400,000 Americans per year, would be banned.

Smokers who are also American’s, or those living in America, have certain rights. These rights should include the ability to choose electronic cigarettes rather than tobacco cigarettes. That’s it…plain and simple. You may not like smoking or smokers, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights.

Ron Paul has been an advocate for limited government, personal freedoms, civil liberties and individual rights since the 1970’s. We at Instead believe that Ron Paul is a perfect allie to help ensure the government or some government agency doesn’t isolate the tobacco market (or the pharmaceutical market) so big companies can enjoy limited competition. We also believe this is a matter of smoker’s rights to choose an alternative to a known killer, which we think Ron Paul will agree with.

UPDATE: We came across this article: Moving Towards Tobacco Prohibition written by Ron Paul. It is a great read for those interested in being free.

One thing has become evidently clear: Most people, including the “scientifically based public health organizations”, do not understand the difference between combustion and vaporization. While we can completely understand a typical person would not, we are baffled as to why those with concerns about second hand smoke do not understand the fundamental basics between smoke and vapor, which means, they simply do not understand the difference between combustion and vaporization.

The electronic cigarette uses a vaporizer. No fire is needed to power the vaporizer. A battery is used to power the vaporizer.

The electronic cigarette consists of three parts: The mouthpiece, the atomizer (or vaporizer) and a lithium ion battery. When the entire unit is assembled, the user creates an inhaling motion which activates the battery. The battery powers the vaporizer and the vaporizer heats the liquid housed in the mouthpiece. The liquid itself is composed of nicotine, propylene glycol and flavorings. Please note that the liquid does not have to contain nicotine and many eSmokers are currently using non-nicotine liquids in their electronic cigarettes.

Propylene glycol makes up between 75% and 89% of the products on the market. Propylene glycol is commonly found in products including and not limited to: Consumer products and food products, including and not limited to deodorants, pharmaceuticals, moisturizing lotions, toothpastes, inhalers and fat-free dairy products.

1. Affects to Users. The FDA recently studied two brands of electronic cigarette liquid (1) and the report noted that the two brands tested contained low amounts of nitrosamines which are also found in many products including nicotine replacement therapies such as the gum, the patch and the Nicotrol Inhaler. The Commit Lozenge is the only nicotine product that does not contain nitrosamines. (2) Nitrosamines are also found in meats purchased from the local grocery store and increase in toxicity levels based on the temperatures at which they are cooked. They can also be found in beer and are finally, injected into food products like bacon.

A peer review of the FDA study, noted that according to the manufacturer’s information of the Nicotrol Inhaler, the user receives more nicotine than with an electronic cigarette. (3) A further study found users of the electronic cigarette will receive 1/3 of the nicotine than with a tobacco cigarette. (4) Please remember, this is based on nicotine content in the liquid and there are a variety of nicotine levels available, including zero nicotine liquids.

The review of the FDA report also found, as the liquid is vaporized and not ingested, that the only impurities found in the inhaled vapor at trace levels were cotinine or β-nicotyrine and “There is no indication in the published scientific literature that cotinine or β-nicotyrine are carcinogenic or have toxicity ratings of concern.” (4) Further studies on the vapor produced by vaporization are currently underway to insure these findings can stand up to further peer review.

2. Affects to Bystanders. In September of 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), determined that “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.” It was also noted that “A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies [and] therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required.” (5)

Propylene glycol vapors and mists have been studied since the early 40’s on all types of specimens from monkeys, rats, human adults and human children. It IS the base ingredient in most anti-bacterial air products found in hospitals. (6) Also found was “Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders. The ‘smoke’ or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit – and is not defined as environmental tobacco smoke.”(4)

Philip Morris conducted a study on their tobacco cigarettes finding that combustion releases a minimum 4,000 by-products including Carbon Monoxide, Arsenic, Hydrogen Cyanide and Formaldehyde to just name some of the worst ones. (7) With vaporization, studies have shown that these chemicals are simply not present because a much higher rate of burning of 1000 degrees is needed, where the vaporizer of an electronic cigarette only reaches between 40 and 65 degrees. (4)(1)

To date, there is no evidence that nicotine is present in the vapor from liquids with or without nicotine. “Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO.” (4) Again, further studies on the vapor produced by vaporization are currently underway to insure these findings can stand up to further peer review.

Another interesting study, for those with concern to Second Hand Smoke should review, is the burning of incense. One study notes “that incense use is associated with increased risk of squamous cell carcinomas in the respiratory tract, especially in the upper part. This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke of burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications”.(8)

While there are differences of opinion on the real damage that can be done by second hand smoke from combustion, there are also amazing studies that have been done on vaporization and confusing the two needs to stop. It is very clear that many of the local smoking ordinances that are popping up and include electronic cigarettes in the definition of “smoke”, are simply wrong, misguided and are not based on any scientific fact whatsoever.

Public health organization need to make the distinction between combustion and vaporization and stop referring to the vapor of an electronic cigarette as “smoke” or as the Non-Smokers Rights Association was quoted today in the Inland Daily Bulletin as saying: “Despite the insufficient amount of testing, Tegen said the organization believes the electronic cigarette should not be considered as a substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes and is concerned about the risks of inhaling second-hand smoke from the electronic version.”

It’s not smoke Ms. Tegan. It’s VAPOR! There is a huge difference and if your organization would like to study this further, you might just see the electronic cigarette for what it truly is: Something that non-smokers can embrace so that smokers no longer bother them with their second hand smoke.

References:

1. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/2009-FDA-Evaluation-of-Ecigs-nJoy-and-SE-results.pdf
2. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/TSNA-Study-in-Smokeless-Tobacco-Products.pdf
3. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/Response-to-the-FDA-Summary.pdf
4. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/2008-NZ-Report.pdf
5. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/EPA-Approval-of-PG.pdf
6. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/1946-Synopsis-On-PG-As-Disinfection-Vapor.pdf
7. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/1999-PM-Component-Anaylis-Combustion.pdf
8. http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/National-Institute-of-Health-Incense-Burning-Study.pdf

Governor Schwarzenegger Protects Adult Consumers’ Access to E-Cigarettes

Industry hails veto of anti-smoking alternative bill as victory for consumers, common sense

Washington, D.C. – October 12, 2009 | Matt Salmon, president of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA), today praised California Governor Schwarzenegger’s wise decision to veto Senate Bill 400, which would have banned electronic cigarette sales in the state, protecting adult consumers’ access to these alternative smoking devices.

“This is not just a victory for consumers and common sense but is smart public policy as well,” said Salmon. “Rejecting this bill is the right step and should serve as a model for other states to follow.”

In his veto message, Governor Schwarzenegger reiterated the stance of the ECA that strongly supports restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18. “We agree with the original intent of SB 400 to ban sales to those under the legal smoking age. And we support that on a national level as well,” added Salmon.

The Governor affirmed that this restriction should not apply to adult consumers: “If adults want to purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they should be able to do so unless and until federal law changes the legal status of these tobacco products.”

The ECA actively communicated to the Governor its members’ concerns about the bill and the fact that banning these electronic cigarettes would disenfranchise thousands of California adult smokers who have difficulty quitting but want an alternative to combustible cigarettes without the host of carcinogens and harmful chemicals. Salmon credited this legislative victory to the efforts of thousands of consumers and ECA members who appealed directly to Governor Schwarzenegger to protect their rights.

“While we know that combustible tobacco smoking kills over 400,000 Americans annually, and the percentage of smokers that quit every year is dismally low, we ought to be looking for more alternatives to traditional combustible tobacco products,” said Salmon.

Electronic cigarette kits usually include the electronic cigarette, a replaceable cartridge pack (that may or may not contain nicotine), rechargeable lithium batteries, and a charger. There is some variation between different companies in what is included in their starter kit, but all components are listed on their Web sites. While ECA members do not market these devices as a healthy alternative or smoking cessation device, it is clear that they do not contain the harmful tars and hundreds of carcinogens that consumers get from combustible tobacco products.

“We look forward to working with all government agencies, including the FDA, to ensure that consumers who want an alternative to combustible tobacco products have access to e-cigarettes that contain fewer harmful substances and produce no secondhand smoke,” concluded Salmon.

###

About the Electronic Cigarette Association

The ECA (www.ecassoc.org) is an association of private sector companies engaged in electronic cigarette technologies. Its mission is to provide the tools and information necessary for policy-makers, opinion leaders, media, and private sector companies worldwide to make informed decisions about the management and use of electronic cigarette technologies. The association institutes and promotes industry-wide standards and a code of conduct, works to maintain sound professional practices, educates the public and policy-makers on the industry’s activities and potential, and works to ensure the ethical use of electronic cigarette technologies.

Due to extraordinary demand, orders that include American Made E-Liquid, including the Instead Kits with American Made E-Liquid, in High Tobacco or Medium Tobacco strength/flavor combinations will be delayed by approximately 1 week. These orders will be shipped on or around October 19th.

Orders that include American Made E-Liquid in Low Tobacco, Zero Tobacco, High Menthol, Medium Menthol, Low Menthol, or Zero Menthol will ship in our usual 1 business day time frame. Most orders placed before 2:00 pm EST go out the same day.

Orders that include our Imported E-Liquid (including our Electronic Cigarette Kits with Imported E-Liquid) will also ship on schedule, although our current availability of flavors and strengths is limited. We will have our Imported E-Liquid stock replenished in the coming weeks.

We apologize for any inconvenience this causes our customers and we continue to work to ensure a steady supply of electronic cigarettes and e-liquid in this ever changing marketplace.