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.

According to the press release section of the official California Governor’s website, Senate Bill 400 (SB400) has been vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. To view California Bills signed and vetoed by the Governor, visit California Legislative Update 2.

The Governator included this veto message to the Senate:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 400 without my signature.

While I support restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18, I
cannot sign a measure that also declares them a federally regulated drug when the matter is
currently being decided through pending litigation.

Items defined as “tobacco products” are legal for anyone over the age of 18. 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. For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

View the pdf version of Arnold’s message to the California State Senate here.

Thank you to the Electronic Cigarette Association, specific ECA members who took action against the Bill, doctors and health care advocates who contacted the Governor, and the many, many consumers in California (and beyond) who wrote letters and sent emails to ensure that they continue to have the right to choose an alternative to a known killer.

It is good to know that at least some elected officials still find it important to base legislation on fact and not media propaganda.

Thank you Governor Schwarzenegger for upholding the great American traditional; freedom of choice.

Matt Salmon, President of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA), today denounced a quotation attributed to him by Epiphany Media Group in a press release dated September 14, 2009. The falsely attributed quotation conveys the mistaken impression that some e-cigarette products have been approved by the FDA for consumer use. Salmon underscored the ECA’s commitment to abide by FDA regulations.

“It has come to my attention that a press release with false and misleading claims about e-cigarettes attributed to me was distributed without my knowledge or approval. I want to make it unequivocally clear that I have never made such statements or claims and they are patently false,” said Salmon.

The erroneous quotation, re-released on October 8, 2009, reads, “It is disheartening that the FDA issued a warning to the public against electronic cigarettes without conclusive data to support the claim.” The release goes onto say that Salmon indicated that “some of the companies that are part of the ECA such as inLife electronic cigarette product lines are approved by the FDA.”

“I don’t know of any electronic cigarette suppliers or manufacturers that have been approved by the FDA,” added Salmon. “All of our members send a warning card with every unit sold stating clearly that the product has not been approved by the FDA.”

The ECA’s policy is that member companies cannot make any health claims about their products or represent them as smoking cessation devices. E-cigarettes sold by these companies are marketed as simply an alternative to combustible tobacco smoking. Additionally, all members must ensure that they have taken precautions to prevent people under the legal smoking age from having access to their products.

“This requirement has been a long-standing policy of the ECA since its inception and we will take the necessary steps to enforce it,” Salmon concluded.

Visit www.ecassoc.org for more information about the ECA and its member companies.

On September 11, 2009 the California Senate passed Bill 400 which will “authorize action to halt the sale, distribution, or offering for sale of electronic cigarettes that have not been approved or cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration.” California Senate Bill 400 was actually originally a Bill to create “The Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle
Technology Program”, then was amended to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors, which we supported. Click here to view a full history of Bill 400. Of course now we do not support the Bill, as banning the product completely will mean limiting smokers choice to burning tobacco, which has well known effects on the body.

We encourage everyone who uses an electronic cigarette or knows someone who does or simply believes that the technology has public benefits to CONTACT THE GOVERNOR and ask him to veto Bill 400. If Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger does does not Veto the Bill 12 days after transmittal, it becomes law. He received the Bill on Sept 28th, so on Oct 10th the Ban on Electronic Cigarettes in California will become law and go into effect on January 1st, 2010.

If you are user or supporter of Electronic Cigarettes, Email Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and ask him to Veto Bill 400. If you would like, you can use this text to email him:

Subject: Please Veto Senate Bill 400.

Senate Bill 400 is designed to ban electronic cigarettes which are an alternative to tobacco cigarettes that do not use combustion, but vaporization. Placing a ban on them now will force many users to go back to tobacco cigarettes at the expense of their health, their loved ones health, and the health of those around them.

Tobacco companies do not sell electronic cigarettes, small American companies do. And although more testing of electronic cigarettes is needed, a ban of this alternative while allowing the sale of tobacco cigarettes (which kills 400,000 American every year) is poor public policy and against public health.

Please Veto SB 400 and give smokers the right to choose an alternative to a known killer.

Signed,
–Your Name Here–

If you live live in California, in addition to sending an email, please call your Governor at 916-445-2841 or Fax a letter at 916-558-3160 or send a certified letter to:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Governor Schwarzenegger’s contact information

Governor Schwarzenegger is your elected official and if this issue is important to you, please act now to get your voice heard.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
— Margaret Mead

UPDATE: California Bill Banning Electronic Cigarettes SB400 Vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger

You must be thinking, Really? Who would think that let alone say it out loud. Well here’s the answer:

“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,” DeLancy said. [Siobhan DeLancey who is a FDA Spokesperson]

This quote is from the Users love ‘e-cigarettes,’ but FDA wants to take closer look article published on September 30th, 2009.

First, let’s discuss the title of the article. Users, for the most part, do love their e-cigarette. However the FDA doesn’t want to “take a closer look”, what they are fighting for in their current legal battle is to classify the e-cigarette as a new drug / medical device thus named a combination product. This means it would be pulled off the market and made illegal until someone spends the money on the FDA application and does clinical trials to prove that it helps people quit smoking. And after the millions have been spent and the years pass, they would bring it back to be sold in pharmacies either OTC or by prescription. It is hard to compete with tobacco when you can’t sell in gas stations, tobacco shops, or online.

Now let’s look at what DeLancey from the FDA said, “There are no long-term studies on the health effects of just nicotine, minus the tobacco component.” – For the most part this is true.

Next, “We know what smoking tobacco does to the body over the long term,” – Yes, we do. It kills a rather large percent of the users

Then, “What we want to see are well-designed clinical studies. Personal reports are not enough,” – I am unclear about how you do a clinical study to provide data about usage over the long term. A 25 year clinical study?

The article then quotes some e-smokers who are very happy with their e-cigarettes. DeLancey ends with, “I feel their pain,” she said. “We don’t know if this is any better for them.”

Two immediate thoughts come to mind:

1) Based on this argument, if e-cigarettes are put through clinical trials and they are shown to kill a large percent of the users, will the FDA approve them for sale just as cigarettes are allowed? If not, why do combustible cigarettes get a free pass. Monopoly?

2) If DeLancey is a 25 year smoker who has tried to quit 14 times without success, then maybe she does feel their pain. However if that was the case, she would probably want to make the decision of what is better for herself. Smokers can do research on the competing products [e-cigarettes vs tobacco cigarettes]. There is data available, even if incomplete, to make a decision for themselves. It is not the FDA’s job to make decisions for adult Americans. It is their job to make sure that consumers have the proper information to make that decision. We applaud efforts by the FDA to ensure companies are not improperly marketing their products. We also hope they will see the potential of this product as we do and begin working with the industry, not try to re-locate it to pharmaceutical land.

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.

The American Legacy Foundation had an “open” discussion on electronic cigarettes on September 16th, 2009. Since their panel was all made up of those who have the same positions, we thought we would respond to some of the information they presented. For full disclosure, we sell electronic cigarettes. For further disclosure, American Legacy Foundation gets money from tobacco company settlements (although they will not give grants to anyone who accepts money from tobacco companies) and receives contributions from Pharmaceutical companies who make nicotine replacement products, specifically Pfizer.

If you want to watch the almost two hour panel discussion, click here. If you prefer, you can watch the excerpts below and read our responses. We attempted to ensure that any clips we provide are not taken out of context, although at times the context is obscure and contradictory, which you will find out for yourself if you watch the whole thing.

NOTE: You will often hear the panel reference ENDS or Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems which is their renaming of the electronic cigarette.

They hope this will be a lively discussion? That would imply that some of the panel members disagreed on the major points. The discussion opens with:

And ends with:

The panel is enthusiastic about agreeing with each other, I’ll give them that. But as for the opposing views, it is clear that this panel all agree on the major issue of what the electronic cigarette should be; a FDA sanctioned, pharmaceutical Nicotine Replacement Therapy.

Here is a clip of Dr. David Abrams (who is the Executive Director of the Steven A. Schroeder National Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the American Legacy Foundation® i.e. he works for the American Legacy Foundation) who raised questions about why the electronic cigarette companies haven’t gone the NRT route via the FDA:

First, let’s be clear; the FDA approval Dr. Abrams wants for the electronic cigarette is as an NRT for people to use to quit smoking. Therefore users would be required to eventually stop using the electronic cigarette altogether. That is one route. Another is to say that smoking is a legal activity and smokers should have the right to use electronic cigarettes as much as they have the right to smoke tobacco.

He also makes it sound very easy to get FDA approval as a NRT which is contrary to Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Outlook 2009, available at http://csdd.tufts.edu/InfoServices/OutlookPDFs/Outlook2009.pdf which shows the average time to get approval of a new drug (which is what a new NRT would likely be classified as) is 8 years. In the meantime, they want the e-cigarette or ENDS pulled from the market and presumably smokers to go back to smoking tobacco.

This is not to mention the FDA fees associated with a new drug approval and the device approval fee. Assuming they want clinical trials, the total cost would be around 2 million not including any consulting, legal fees, and the actual cost of the testing and clinical trials. I am no expert in this field and may have overlooked some requirements or loopholes, but in any case it is extremely likely the cost is going to be more than 1 million dollars, which is out of the reach of almost all the electronic cigarette suppliers on the market right now. The electronic cigarette industry in America is predominantly small US based businesses. Yes, much of the hardware is made in China, but I challenge you to find an American retail industry that doesn’t have their products built overseas. And remember, this would all be in the name of testing a “new drug”, specifically inhaled nicotine.

If we get past the rights of smokers to choose an alternative and the time and cost associated with getting approval, we soon run into the real issue with making the electronic cigarette a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT); competing with tobacco. NRTs are sold only in pharmacies at costs outside of market influence. If you doubt this, price out some nicotine gum. So now we have a competing product with tobacco that can’t be sold where tobacco is sold, at a higher price, and with more restrictions. This will make it incredibly hard for the e-cigarette to properly compete with tobacco. Reputable e-cigarette suppliers are not asking for special treatment, but rather to have the opportunity to compete with tobacco fairly.

Lastly, there is no proof the electronic cigarette would be a good NRT. If marketers don’t make cessation claims, then why would they go through testing to try and prove something they don’t want to claim. The FDA doesn’t make Coke-a-Cola test their product for it’s effectiveness as a way to stop using caffeine. Why? Coke doesn’t want to make that claim.

Dr. David Abrams whose conclusion was that he wanted the electronic cigarette to be a NRT, at one point discusses how he believes the e-cigarette is actually a tobacco product. So I am actually not sure what he wants:

He states that all nicotine products contain traces of the same organic substances, but then reverts to a scare tactic that e-liquid may be using pesticide grade nicotine. What he doesn’t mention is that nicotine itself is a poison. Even pharmacological grade nicotine in proper doses would kill bugs. Again, the devil is in the dosage. Please note that tobacco cigarettes do not use pharmacological grade nicotine. With that said, I agree pharmacological grade nicotine should be used and in the majority of products on the market, it is being used. Current testing being done will show the actual levels of TSNAs and we will release it as soon as we have it.

This is not about zero regulation, it is about reasonable regulation. The industry is only “adversarial” because those with vested interests in competing industries are determined to take this product off the market. Those who are truly for public health should be more interested in the science behind the electronic cigarette, comparing it to tobacco cigarettes, and it’s future potential rather than with taking it off the market until someone pays the FDA.

More analysis of the American Legacy Foundations “Open” Discussion will be coming over the next week.

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.