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?

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.

The electronic cigarette is a fascinating product. It allows smokers to continue with their habitual routine of smoking but eliminates the combustion by using vaporization. In our 2008 post “Yes, It’s an Electric Cigarette“, was our first mention of the word “vaping”.

As the electronic cigarette does not use combustion but vaporization, many eSmokers like to be called “vapers”. They “vape” their personal vaporizers, another name for electronic cigarettes, but most importantly, they want to keep their Right to Vape.

INSTEAD is committed to helping fight a good battle. We have worked hard to see the foundation of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) formed. The hope is to keep electronic cigarettes on the market in direct competition with tobacco cigarettes so smokers truly have the choice to vape rather than “smoke”.

As tobacco smokers, one of our biggest problems was that we LOVED to smoke. We LOVED everything except for the smell, the smoke and the companies who made them. We could not ask them what their smoke contained but we did know it was killing us. We could feel ourselves being “put out” with every cigarette butt.

For many eSmokers or “vapers”, this is not the situation. Although everyone agrees further testing is needed, anyone who does a day’s worth of research online about the e-cigarette will soon find a great deal of information to make an informed decision. They keep in mind; vaping (i.e. e-smoking) is a bad habit with some risks vs. the habit that kills 400,000 people in the USA every year…..more than World War II — more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined. For whatever their reasons, they feel that the electronic cigarette is their choice and they should continue to have that choice. In short, they want to protect their right to vape.

There is an organization, conveniently called, Right to Vape (RtV). They are made up of ex-smokers from all walks of life and are some of the most passionate people we have ever met. They work hard to ensure that consumers have a voice.

Founded in January of 2009, Right to Vape has come a long way. They have focused their mission and now have a very clear and strong goal to see a future where consumers can choose their personal vaporizers (electronic cigarettes) over tobacco cigarettes.

The mission of Right to Vape is:
“Vapers come from all walks of life . . . we hail from different countries and ascribe to many different political, religious, and economic philosophies. But despite our many differences (large and small), we have one thing in common: We passionately believe in our right to vape.

The volunteers of Right to Vape believe that Right to Vape is in a unique position to empower consumers, but we realize that in order for an organization to have an effective voice and presence, it must have goals and a clear sense of direction . . . a Mission Statement that people believe in and want to support.

We believe the Mission Statement that has been adopted by the volunteers of Right to Vape provides that sense of direction:

Right to Vape is an international volunteer organization aimed at initiating and supporting activism and education on behalf of those wishing to use personal vaporizers, including nicotine where desired, and to encourage scientific study, product safety and effectiveness. Right to Vape holds no national or political allegiances and aims to work with other organizations world-wide which share its goals.”

If you are interested in volunteering to protect your right to vape, please visit their Volunteer page for requirements of participation. They are completely made up of consumers and have no vested interest in the industry. Suppliers are welcome to participate as an individual consumer, but have no voting rights.

Right to Vape is not affiliated with INSTEAD in any way, other than our participation in discussions. We fully support their mission and encourage our customers who wish to do something, to head on over and have a look. Stop into the Welcome New Members thread and introduce yourself. Take some time to visit the Right to Vape Activism Section to find things that you can do right now!

Protect your freedom of choice. Protect your right to vape.

With the rise in the number of people using the electronic cigarette, there is more and more interest from entrepreneurs and internet marketers in promoting the electronic cigarette to smokers who have not been able to quit smoking. To help with the success of those promoting the INSTEAD Electronic Cigarettes, we have raised our commission rate to 10% of the gross sale. This, in combination with our very unique electronic cigarette sets and our great customer service will help ensure our affiliates can compete in the ever growing electronic cigarette market.

For information about how to join, visit our electronic cigarette affiliate page or sign up directly to become and INSTEAD affiliate.

For those who wish to get more involved in the e-cigarette directly by actually selling electronic cigarettes, please contact us HERE. Include information about the area you wish to serve (geographical location, online, established brick and mortar stores) and the estimated monthly volume. This will help us determine which avenue is best, since we do have relationships with a variety of companies to facilitate almost any wholesale electronic cigarette need.

Please note we are also able to help those who wish to sell electronic cigarettes internationally. We have helped set up other companies and individuals outside of the United States who wish to offer their customers e-cigarettes. International inquiries can use the same contact form and again, please include information about your market.

Over the past couple months there have been some opponents of electronic cigarettes coming out publicly and making many false or misleading statements about electronic cigarettes. These nay-sayers often use phrases such as “we just don’t know” to further their agenda against electronic smoking. On the flip side, there are some suppliers and supporters of e-cigarettes making statements that are also not entirely true to promote the product and gain public acceptance of the technology. So, below is an incomplete list of what we do and what we don’t know about electronic cigarettes.

Here’s what we DON’T know about electronic cigarettes:

1) We don’t know that they contain carcinogens. Some e-liquid may, but some may not. The FDA tested it and found that some do, but it wasn’t clear that they were found in the actual vapor. What was clear, was that when it was found, it was in trace levels.

2) We don’t know what the long term effects are of inhaling propylene glycol (or vegetable glycerin) may be. The EPA study on Propylene Glycol states, “A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required.” and “Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.” With that said, we still can’t say for certain what the long term implications of inhaling propylene glycol are to the user.

3) We don’t know if electronic cigarettes can help someone stop smoking. We have argued many times on this blog that is is actually a poor stop smoking product because it allows the continuation of the smoking habit. It also continues to deliver nicotine which is addictive and one reason smokers keep smoking. Either way, there is no evidence that it is an effective quit smoking product.

4) We don’t know if this is eventually something kids will try. To date, there is no evidence that any kids have tried e-cigarettes especially those who have never smoked. We fully support making electronic cigarettes an adult only product.

Here’s what we DO know about electronic cigarettes:

1) The majority of the vapor produced consists of propylene glycol, glycerin and water. There is also generally some amount of nicotine in the vapor, unless zero nicotine e-liquid is used. This doesn’t mean there is nothing bad in the vapor, it just means that we do know what is in the majority of the vapor. Further testing is under way to find out all the trace elements.

2) There is no smoke produced because there is no combustion.

3) At least some smokers find e-smoking to be a decent alternative to smoking tobacco.

4) Electronic cigarettes have been on the worldwide market for approximately 7 years with no reports of major issues from the users. There have been reports of dry throat, headaches and other minor symptoms. This does not mean that there won’t be reports of more severe issues from users, but it does mean there haven’t been any yet.

5) To our knowledge, tobacco companies DO NOT make or sell any electronic cigarettes on the market. In the United States most are sold by smaller, start up businesses.

6) Burning tobacco is the cause of upwards of 400,000 deaths per year in the United States alone and electronic cigarettes are an alternative to it.

For a limited time, we are once again offering pre-filled electronic cigarette cartridges.  The cartridges fit the Instead Electronic Cigarette and come filled with your choice of e-liquid (various nicotine levels in tobacco or menthol flavors).  These cartridges, just like the empty electronic cigarette cartridges, can be refilled with e-liquid (once they are used up).  Pre-filled cartridges are approximately equivalent to 3 to 5 tobacco cigarettes.  Although we still believe the best e-smoking experience is with e-liquid, the pre-filled cartridges are convenient for those on the go.

Another new addition to our product line are the E-Cigarette Car Chargers.  This car charger works in conjunction with the small USB charger that comes with every Instead Electronic Cigarette Kit.  It converts your car’s cigarette lighter into a USB input to plug in your charger.  Another great idea for the e-smoker on the move.

Happy E-Smoking!

We have two competing products: The tobacco cigarette and the electronic cigarette. Both can deliver nicotine and facilitate the habit of smoking. But there are differences. The electronic cigarette is a reusable product. Cartridges can be filled over and over again. Batteries and atomizers last many uses. Obviously this is not the case with tobacco cigarettes. Let’s have a look at the difference in garbage produced between using 300 tobacco cigarettes and using 1 bottle of E-Liquid (approx. equivalent to 300 tobacco cigarettes by puff count):

Please note the e-cigarette cartridges are made of #2 plastic, which is generally recyclable. The glass bottle from e-smoking and the cardboard boxes from the tobacco cigarettes are also recyclable. This image shows the amount of garbage with no recycling, although we encourage everyone to recycle.

It has been a busy few months! Our fight to keep the electronic cigarette from being seen as a quit smoking device by the FDA and anti-smoking groups continues. We have also been working hard to ensure that our supply of American Made E-Liquid is solid so we can provide our customers with better pricing!

Please note that while we may have been able to reduce our pricing on American Made E-Liquid and our Unique Stash Tin Electronic Cigarette Kits, this does not mean that we have cut back on our wonderful customer service! INSTEAD Electronic Cigarettes continues to grow by leaps and bounds as a company and hopes that our continued support of the industry will help the industry achieve it’s rightful place in the United States free market system.

Also, don’t forget to take a look at one of our newest products, the portable USB electronic cigarette battery charger. This charger can not only recharge your ecig batteries up to 18 times on the go, but it can also charge your iPhone. A must have for anyone who has portable USB devices.

Smokers have a choice! And that choice includes the Electronic Cigarette!