The intended use of a product is important not only from the perspective of categorization by the FDA but also to ensure the consumer is not misled by advertising. The FDA has been arguing that the intended use of the electronic cigarette is, or should be, to help people quit smoking. We do not believe this to be the case. We believe that this is another way to intake nicotine and participate in the action of smoking, without actually burning tobacco.

Many consumers who signed the electronic cigarette petition have stated that they have quit smoking with the electronic cigarette. However, these same consumers don’t state they have quit using nicotine, just that they have quit smoking. Smoking is not a disease according to the CDC, but nicotine addiction is, and there is no proof that electronic cigarettes help treat nicotine addiction. There is also no evidence that these consumers will not go back to smoking tobacco cigarettes.

It is a disservice to consumers to lead them to believe the electronic cigarette is a quit smoking product. There is no evidence as such. It continues the habit and the addiction to nicotine.

The intended use of the Instead Electronic Cigarette is to use it for the action of smoking. If you like to smoke, you may like the electronic cigarette. If you want to quit smoking, we recommend you go cold turkey or use a product that has been proven to help smokers quit.

As noted in a previous about how the new tobacco legislation effects the electronic cigarette, we noted that in order for a product to be a drug it must be “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals”. And in order to be a new drug….it must be a drug.

So I contacted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and asked if smoking was considered a disease. At first they just sent me all the statistics about how many people smoking kills. Then they got mad I kept asking. Then I eventually received this response:

“When reviewing responses related to tobacco use that were provided by CDC-INFO, we noticed your question asking if smoking is considered a disease. As noted by CDC-INFO, smoking is a primary risk factor for many diseases. Addiction to drugs, is viewed as a brain disease by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). For information about nicotine addiction, please visit NIDA’s Web site at
http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Nicotine/Nicotine.html and
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/understand.html”

So, according to the CDC, smoking is not a disease, but rather it may put the user at risk of getting an actual disease. Apparently they believe that NIDA is correct and being addicted to nicotine is a disease. Thus, the electronic cigarette [e-liquid] as a new drug is one that is intended to diagnosis, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent the addiction to nicotine. Curing nicotine addiction would involve not using nicotine anymore.

UPDATE: I recently found where Norman Edelman, M.D., Chief Medical Officer for the American Lung Association stated, “Smoking is widely recognized as a disease of nicotine addiction,”

This is why Snus or dissolvables are not Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products. They are not marketed as a way to quit smoking (quit using nicotine). They are marketed to be used indefinitely, i.e. to continue using nicotine.

The nicotine patch or gum is meant to ween the user off of nicotine until they no longer use it….thus curing them. There IS a stop usage date on NRT products.

Selling a consumer an electronic cigarette as a quit smoking device would mean it necessary to instruct the consumer to eventually move to zero nicotine e-liquid and/or to ultimately quit vaping altogether.

For those who think that the mere fact that there is a zero nicotine e-liquid available means it treats nicotine addiction; please note that there is zero nicotine Snus and even a zero nicotine patch that is apparently not an NRT, but yet does claim to help users quit smoking (quit using nicotine). Of course no drug, means no “new drug”, which means it isn’t a NRT.

If there is no stop usage date, then how can an electronic cigarette cure nicotine addiction? And how can continuing the action that got the user addicted to nicotine in the first place help cure their addiction? If smoking / vaping / using an electronic cigarette with zero nicotine is the cure, then so is smoking a zero nicotine tobacco cigarette. Oddly enough, these nicotine free cigarettes do claim to help the user quit smoking, but still they are not an NRT.

So we have products that contain nicotine, have no stop usage date, and make no quit smoking claims that are not NRTs (dissolvables, Snus)
We have products that contain no nicotine or any drugs, that do make quit smoking claims and they are not NRTs (zero nicotine patch, nicotine free cigarettes)
We have products that contain nicotine (or other drugs), have a stop usage date, and claim to help users quit smoking. These are NRTs (gum, patch, pills)

Which of these is most suitable for the electronic cigarette? To be classified as a new drug under the classification of a NRT, the product must 1) contain a drug and 2) have a stop using nicotine date or imply one with the claim of quitting smoking. Also, the American Lung Association states, “To be most effective, nicotine replacement products should be used in conjunction with a behavior change program.” (Update: we now link to the Archive.org page of the American Lung Association as it appears they recently took down this page) It is pretty obvious that electronic smoking is a continuation of the action of smoking, thus making it a rather ineffective NRT at best.

Most reputable e-cigarette suppliers don’t claim it helps anyone quit smoking and there is no proof that it does. I have yet to see any manufacturer or supplier recommending a stop usage date. It can come with nicotine or not.

So an e-cigarette that contains no nicotine (or any other drug) and makes no quit smoking claims should be labeled (and regulated) as an NRT? If so it would be the only product of it’s kind.

And with nicotine e-liquid and no stop usage date, we have a product that perpetuates nicotine addiction, not cures it. The upside? Nicotine alone kills very, very, very few people (if any) but inhaling burning tobacco kills hundreds of thousands.

The e-cigarette or electronic cigarette mimics smoking using vapor. It can contain tobacco products, but doesn’t necessarily need to. Some believe it helps people quit smoking, while others (such as Instead) believes it is not a quit smoking product. So where does it fit in? A tobacco product needs to contain tobacco. A new drug needs to cure, treat, diagnose, or mitigate a disease or condition.

There is no clear answer. But, when we look past the question of regulation, taxation, and ultimate control here is what we find:

A product that a decent percentage of smokers find to be a reasonable alternative to burning tobacco. Inhaling burning tobacco is known to cause cancer and a multitude of other problems for the user and potential for those near the user. Inhaling vapor from an e-cigarette has not been shown to cause issues for the user or by-standers. There may be unforeseen issues of inhaling propylene glycol or glycerin vapor in the long term, but there is no way to tell without decades of testing. In the mean time, inhaling burning tobacco would continue to kill. It is hard to believe that inhaling propylene glycol for 20 years would be worse than inhaling all the dangerous chemicals found in tobacco smoke for 20 years. Even if the FDA was correct and the vapor contained traces of TSNAs (which it didn’t…..it found those in the liquid), tobacco smoke contains these TSNAs in much, much higher levels.

So who should regulate it? The FDA thinks they should as an NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy). The issue is this; as an NRT it would need to be pulled from the market and submitted by a pharmaceutical company as a quit smoking product. The cost is in the tens of millions and the testing can go on for years. Even after it is approved, it can then only be sold in pharmacies either with or without a prescription. This is all assuming a pharmacy even sees the potential and submits the application. In the meantime, people keep burning tobacco at their regular rate and dieing.

If we skip into the future and do find electronic cigarettes sold in pharmacies, we will find tobacco cigarettes being sold in gas stations. We will likely find electronic cigarettes have now become more expensive than tobacco cigarettes (the pharmaceutical company would need to make back their tens of millions). We find at least some smokers disappointed that they didn’t quit using the e-cigarette as the package so boldly claims.

Now lets look at an alternative future, one where regulation has come in a different form such as via the tobacco bill or via the industry itself or via a newly created category. The product is sold in gas stations beside tobacco cigarettes. Companies compete to reduce their prices while consumers continue to demand innovation, safety, and function. There is competition. It is marketed as another way to smoke. Smokers freely use the e-cigarette instead of their tobacco cigarettes, whether completely or sporadically.

Which scenario is in the best interest of the smoker and of by-standers?

Electronic cigarettes are not safe. They are not healthy. But inhaling burning tobacco is known to carry a high risk of cancer.

The current litigation between two electronic cigarette suppliers and the FDA has everyone in a tailspin. It certainly did not help that the FDA openly misled the public into believing that the electronic cigarette is as (or more) dangerous than tobacco cigarettes. Many medical health professionals have weighed in on this noting the following:

* Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, called the FDA statement “distorted, incomplete, and misleading. She also noted that “products of combustion cause cancers, cardiovascular disease and lung disease, and more.”

* Dr. Joel Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA, FACPM, Chair, Tobacco Control Task Force, American Association of Public Health Physicians stated that “We have every reason to believe the hazard posed by electronic cigarettes would be much lower than 1% of that posed by (tobacco) cigarettes. The testing guidelines in the current tobacco act (circulating through Congress) would represent a ban on electronic cigarettes, (yet) if we get all tobacco smokers to switch from regular cigarettes (to electronic cigarettes), we would eventually reduce the US death toll from more than 400,000 a year to less than 4,000, maybe as low as 400.”

* Michael Siegel, a physician, researcher and professor at the Boston University School of Public Health noted that “What the FDA and anti-smoking groups are doing is committing medical malpractice on a massive scale: on a population basis. They are essentially condemning 100,000-plus consumers to a return to the most deadly known consumer product. So many of these individuals have reported a tremendous improvement in their health since switching to electronic cigarettes.”

Just for the record, all of the above public health officials are anti-smoking advocates.

The FDA and many anti-smoking groups are calling for the electronic cigarette to be pulled from the market on the basis that it is not a proven quit smoking device. The Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) President Matt Salmon, former US Congressman from Arizona, noted in a letter to Congress that the ECA “acknowledges the health risks of cigarette smoking and advocates that smokers quit. But we also recognize the struggles that many have in quitting and who are looking for a more convenient and better alternative to tobacco cigarettes. While some of our customers have reported using our devices to help them quit smoking by slowing reducing the nicotine delivery in our products, it is important to note that our member companies do not market their e-cigarettes as smoking cessation products nor make any such claims.”

What is most important is the idea of claims. The FDA was formally named in 1930, and the “FDA’s modern regulatory functions began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs.” The original act had huge issues mainly that “False therapeutic claims for patent medicines were basically unregulated, as the manufacturer had only to show that he personally believed that his remedy worked to avoid prosecution, and standards for food purity and content were nonexistent.”

In 1938, after the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide Incident, where the SE Massengil Company created an elixir containing diethylene glycol as the base ingredient was given to children with strep which led to painful deaths, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was put into place. Following, came several examples of “incidents” and “near incidents” that lead for further revision of the Act.

But the question that lies at the heart of this debate is the electronic cigarette liquid really a “new drug” and is the electronic cigarette hardware really a “medical device”? According to the FDA’s definition of “new drug”, they state that the definition of a drug includes “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” To put this into comparison with other products on the market that do not require FDA approval, let us look at dietary supplements.

Currently, the FDA does not regulate dietary supplements. Those products do not have to be FDA approved for safety, however, they can be recalled by the FDA if there are enough complaints. The only responsibility the manufacturer holds is that “Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading.”

Keeping this idea in mind that products can be on the market without FDA regulation, lets look at nicotine. Currently, there is nothing contained within the FDA website referring to nicotine. However, there is a plant out there that has many of the same effects as nicotine and that is lobelia inflata which IS specifically mentioned on the FDA website. The FDA notes in Sec. 310.544 Drug products containing active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for use as a smoking deterrent, that “Any OTC drug product that is labeled, represented, or promoted as a smoking deterrent is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of section 201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), for which an approved application or abbreviated application under section 505 of the act and part 314 of this chapter is required for marketing.” But what happens if these claims are not to be made and the product clearly states that this product has not been evaluated by the FDA?

Now, let’s review what the FDA considers a “medical device”. The term “device”… means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is–
(1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them,
(2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
(3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes.

For comparison purposes, we need to look at tobacco vaporizers. Tobacco vaporizers are currently not FDA regulated. Many of the vaporizers currently sold on the market today, carry the warning that the vaporizer is not approved for medical-therapeutic purposes. If the electronic cigarette is simply a vaporizer, which is it as it uses no combustion, and there are currently hundreds of other products on the market that vaporize tobacco to deliver nicotine into the body, and those are not classified as “medical devices”, then these smaller, more compact versions should fall into the same category as the larger versions, like the Volcano.

If the electronic cigarette liquid uses ingredients that are found in traditional tobacco cigarettes, all ingredients are FDA approved as generally safe for consumption, and the supplier placing the product on the market is not making any claims, then based on the above arguments, the electronic cigarette liquid is not a “new drug” and therefor does not need to be approved by the FDA. This would also lead to the conclusion that if the liquid itself is not a “new drug”, then the hardware itself is not a “medical delivery device”.

Instead stands firm that smokers should have the option to smoke something other than tobacco cigarettes. There should be regulations and those regulations should be put forth by a regulatory body who understands that tobacco harm reduction products have a place in the free market.

Electronic cigarettes are not healthy or safe. Anything that you inhale is probably not good for you….except for air…..except air in any major city in the world.

But lets compare the electronic cigarette to tobacco cigarettes. The tar, arsenic, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen cyanide in tobacco smoke is produced via combustion. The electronic cigarette produces vapor, not smoke. There have been some TSNAs (tobacco specific nitrosamines) found in some electronic cigarette liquid, but these are present in much greater quantities in tobacco cigarettes and are even found in low levels in FDA approved NRTs such as nicotine gum and the patch. More testing is needed to determine if TSNAs are actually present in the e-cigarette vapor, which is important as this is actually the method of intake, not the eliquid.

So is the electronic cigarette healthier than tobacco cigarettes? We can’t say yet without further testing. But consumers should have all the information and ask themselves questions like; if my cigarettes didn’t have tar, arsenic, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen cyanide would I rather smoke them? I think consumers can make this determination for themselves.

The problem with making specific claims about cigarettes or tobacco of any kind is two fold. First, it can give the impression that tobacco and specifically smoking, is in any way healthy, which it is not. Even relative marketing statements such as “healthier” and “safer” can give the idea that the e-cigarette is some how good for you, which it is not. Smoking is bad for you.

The second issue with making health or safety claims is that this gives the FDA a position to attempt to take the e-cigarette out of the hands of the long term smokers who use the electronic cigarette. Before you can make a health claim (or smoking cessation claim), you must have FDA approval. This means doing the testing they require and writing them a rather large check.

So it is important that marketers of the electronic cigarette walk that fine line of convincing long time, dedicated smokers to try an electronic cigarette and making claims that may lead them to believe that smoking is good, healthy, or safe in some way.

So what is our position at INSTEAD? We don’t consider the electronic cigarette a quit smoking device, as it is still “smoking” in effect. We also do not promote the e-cigarette as healthy because it is not healthy. We just think that of age people who choose the legal action of smoking should have the choice to smoke the electronic cigarette, which we believe has distinct advantages over traditional smoking. We do not make the determination of whether or not this is healthier for any particular smoker. We sell to adults and they can make that decision for themselves.

The debate rages on about electronic cigarettes, but what is this fight really over. Many public health organizations and federal agencies site the fact that nicotine needs approval as a safe and effective quit smoking aid. But why? As an adult, is it not your decision to use nicotine, just as it is to use caffeine? Nicotine has not been shown to cause cancer. Yes it is addictive, but so are many other things to many people. If we take public health out of the equation, which is exactly what you do when you remove the tobacco, then what is the real issue here? Enter the nicotine prohibitionists.

The same health organizations that claim it is all about public health believe all nicotine products should be a smoking cessation aid. If a certain product is shown to get people to quit smoking, then great, but it is still unclear as to why a nicotine product needs to have this intended use. Can’t I use nicotine because I like it? Can’t I drink coffee because I like it? Can’t I drink beer because I like it? When we start controlling the reason a product is on the market under the umbrella of public health aren’t we attempting to control behavior? To deal with stress, which is a public health concern, am I not able to choose my outlet?

Regulation is important. Kids shouldn’t drink coffee, or beer, or use nicotine gum (which is funny because what is more “kid” then chewing gum?). Regulation is also important to make sure products are not mislabeled and that manufacturing processes follow certain health and safety guidelines.

But regulation to make sure nicotine helps people quit smoking is like trying to make sure all guns are able to protect their owners. They may do just that, or they may be used for fun at the range. Or they may be used to hunt. Or they may be used to collect. People have different wants and needs. Provided the product follows the marketing, labeling, and safety regulations what does it matter why someone uses it. I’ll tell you why: Because when there are no more smokers, it will be much easier to eliminate nicotine altogether. Next up: Caffeine.

Currently, the electronic cigarette remains unclassified.  The WHO (World Health Organization) has said on several occasions that the “electronic cigarette should not be marketed as a smoking cessation device”.  And all who use it know that it is not a tobacco cigarette.  So where should it fall?

The device itself, consisting of a battery and an atomizer is a vaporizer.  As far as we can tell, vaporizers are legal and even though attempts have been made to ban vaporizers for alcohol and marijuana consumption, a very slim few have ever passed.  All information we found shows that banning such items would not hinder the war on drugs and would eliminate consumption avenues for legal products.  It’s not the pipe, it’s what is in the pipe. And our pipes, vaporizers, smoking machines, have nicotine liquid in them.

In my research this morning, I think I may have found where the e-cigarette could potentially fit. My suggestion is that we look into the rules and regulations of becoming a Homeopathic or Allopathic drug.

Why? The Homeopathic drugs are submitted to HPCUS, The Homœopathic Pharmacopœia of the United States. Now, with NICOWater, they were contacted by the FDA and re-forumulated their nicotine concentration to be below 4 mg per dose which drops them into the homeopathic category. Further testing will need to be done on the various nicotine levels of ELiquid to determine if it falls under 4 mg per dose. And technically, as the no nicotine has no nicotine, does it need to be regulated at all?

With homeopathic drugs, you present to HPCUS as you would to the FDA, but you need two clinical trials and samples. (Of which we will be able to provide with the Auckland study and another doctor who has been working on his own tests). The process is shorter and faster.

And as long as you are under 4 mg, you can still be considered a homeopathic drug instead of an NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy). Under homeopathic, you can make claims such as: Healthier Alternative. Under homeopathic you cannot make claims that it is a cessation device.

Allopathic drugs go through the FDA, but don’t seem to be held to the same restrictive process as an NRT/NDP.  They are a bit more cumbersome to achieve because we will have to go through the FDA.  With the peanut butter issues they are having right now, it could take a minimum of 5-10 years, just to hit someones desk.

I thought I would put this out there so others could help me on my lead. We all talk of where does the e-cig fit. Either way, we at Instead DO NOT feeling the e-cigarette should be lumped into the NRT/NDP category and we don’t want to be lumped into the tobacco category because we are not tobacco.  Tomatoes, eggplant and even chiles are all a part of the nightshade family, the group of plants that contain nicotine.  Are they tobacco?

Here is another interesting note: FDA doesn’t have control of tobacco (as of the date of the posting), however, their formula looks kind of like this – “Device” = tobacco = nicotine-delivery device but tobacco does not = class of device.

Dosing info is important. The industry will have to come up with something that can be agreed upon in order to move forward with any regulation in any form.

So, originally, we went with the “standard” dose per tobacco cigarette as put forth by the tobacco industry AND our nicotine liquid manufacturer.  They both say that a dose is approximately 14 puffs from a tobacco cigarette.  Since we know that we must pacify the anti-smoking campaign, we have decided to use their counts for puffs per dose.  They can hardly argue against their own determinations.  Ignoring puff counts: another shortcoming of the Federal Trade Commission cigarette testing programme — Kozlowski et al. 17 (1): i6 — Tobacco Control.

So what happens if the electronic cigarette is approved by HPCUS to be a homeopathic drug?  Then the electronic cigarette will be able to be sold, as it is now:  Over the counter without a prescription.  It is a “smoking alternative”.  It is not a smoking cessation device and therefore, still cannot be marketed as such.  It is simply an option for smokers who want to smoke something.

Now, there is an argument that smoking an electronic cigarette is not “smoking” but “vaping”.  So lets look at the words and what they really mean.

Vaping comes from vap – That which is vapid, insipid, or lifeless; especially, the lifeless part of liquor or wine.  If a vaporizer turns a liquid into a vapor, then how is the action of a vaporizer, vaping?  Smoking is the act of smoking tobacco or other substances. So where did “vaping” come from?  Vaping is urban slang for smoking marijuana or tobacco through a vaporizer.  Clearly, the action of inhaling an electronic cigarettes vapor could be classified as smoking and not vaping.

The electronic cigarette IS a smoking alternative.  I use mine just like I would a cigarette and I don’t call it going for a vape, I call it going for a smoke. With everything I have read, it is far safer and easier to be lumped into the tobacco side than the pharm side, neither of which we appear to fit… hence the homeopathic or allopathic idea.

We don’t have to defend ourselves against tobacco cigarettes. We simply put ourselves up in comparison for the differences. We have to present A vs. B and prove why B should be given clearance if A has clearance.  If the fight against smoking is truly health related, then removing one potential health risk (SHS) is definitely a step in the right direction. Many other risks are clearly removed, including second hand smoke from burning tobacco.

As far as taxes, taxes are what they are. They have also been grossly unbalanced by the anti-smoking movement who provides us with articles that “a study was done and voters in Florida have spoken! They would approve a $1 increase on cigarettes.” 1000 people were surveyed by phone. Is this a significant sampling size?  We have also heard that New Mexico would like to raise their tax on cigarettes to $1 a pack ($1.91 tax on a pack of cigarettes).

Did you know that in 2004 the New Mexico Board of Health did a study on their top 10 objectives for health and there was not one mention of smoking, but obesity was a serious issue?  Leave the cigarette tax at $0.91 and raise the tax on fatty foods to $0.91.  Electronic cigarettes have the ability to change the smokers options and actually give a voice to a group of people who are being shuffled into the streets like dogs.

The taxes on cigarettes will always be there. There’s taxes on booze. There’s also a tax on milk, bread and butter.  Eventually, there will be a tax on the electronic cigarette too.

As far as persuading millions to quit… that is not our goal. Our goal is to offer smokers an alternative to smoking tobacco. One thing I have learned from all of my “quits” is that I am a smoker. It runs deep through my family history and well… I like it. So why should I have to be anything but? Quitting the inhalation of burning tobacco was just a bonus for me.

With the rise of legislation that has forced tobacco companies to go to Fire Safe Cigarettes, which in itself is an oxymoron, smokers are reporting problems.  These cigarettes also tend to explode and shoot fireballs into the air and onto clothing and furniture.  Did you know that in 85% of the United States, it is mandated by law that the cigarette companies add even more chemicals to your paper so they burn out faster?  Did you also know that just this week, a school basement caught fire from a janitor smoking and that state sells mandatory FSC’s?

If people can take pills to be thinner and more relaxed and they can drink redbulls and caffeine coffee by the cups full, why can’t they ingest nicotine on their own free will themselves?  There is a strong argument that nicotine, while addictive, is no worse than caffeine and should be considered a lesser drug, like it’s counterpart caffeine.  And I would even go as far to say that caffeine should not be sold to those under 18, just like nicotine.  When children are suffering from RedBull induced ADD/ADHD and then treated with pharmaceutical medications, wouldn’t it be far safer to raise our children on limited caffeine, limiting their risk for an addictive personality later in life?

Either way, the electronic cigarette is here to stay.  No matter what the anti-smoking lobby attempts to do, there is quickly becoming plenty of supporters of electronic smoking. Further testing may put this debate to rest sooner than later.

Just to be clear, electronic cigarettes are not a proven method of quitting smoking tobacco cigarettes.  They are, however an alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes.  Unlike nicotine gum or the patch, an electronic cigarette closely mimics the actual physical motion and feeling of smoking.  It does deliver nicotine to the body via the vapor like mist but doesn’t include the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke.  Many experts note that nicotine is addictive, but not necessarily responsible for many of the adverse health effects associated with smoking.  The problem comes from the many other natural and added chemicals produced by burning tobacco.

Having a smoking alternative such as electronic cigarettes can provide many smokers an outlet for their addiction.  There is no guarantee that any given smoker will like using the ecigarette or that they will stop smoking tobacco, but for many, it may be just what they have been looking for.

An Electronic Cigarette is not a quit smoking product.  It is however, a replacement to smoking tobacco, which of course is known to be very harmful.  If you have tried products to quit smoking and are back to smoking tobacco cigarettes, you may want to try an electronic cigarette or e-cigarette as it is often known, as an alternative to your current habit. It looks and acts like a regular cigarette, but rather than burning tobacco, it vaporizes liquid nicotine. The vapor is similar to smoke, but doesn’t smell and doesn’t contain many of the toxins associated with tobacco smoke. The electronic cigarette may not be for everyone, but if you are looking for an alternative, it may just be for you.

Although the electronic cigarette is not a quit smoking product, it is an alternative to smoking. There is no one best way to stop smoking or to change habits. Some have had success with the cold turkey route, others with natural methods such as CigArrest ( CigArrest Official Site), and still others have quit smoking with medication, nicorette or the nicotine patch. There seems to be a new “best way to stop smoking” every week especially as technology changes. However, many of these methods do not address the physical habit of hand to mouth. The E Cig may not be the answer to stopping smoking, but it does allow the user to continue the smoking motion. The debate continues about if e-smoking is better for you, but we encourage users to compare the ingredients in tobacco smoke with those in eliquid and esmoke.