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.

Today’s post is regarding the Life Span of an Electronic Cigarette. How long should a battery last? How long should an atomizer last? How long should a 15ml bottle of E-Liquid last? How long should the cartridge last? What should one expect and how much should one plan on spending over the course of a year for an electronic cigarette?

First, we would like to note that all things must be taken into consideration and the most important factor, is the type of smoker and the style of smoking. Just as there are different types of tobacco smokers, there are different types of eSmokers, and just because you are a certain type of tobacco smoker, does not mean that your eSmoking style will be the same.

That said… Here we go!

How long should a battery last?

The INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette battery is a lithium ion battery. The barrel is white and has the INSTEAD logo printed in black, just below the gold threads where the atomizer connects. This battery, based on usage can last anywhere from 6 months to 18 months. Again, the more you use it and recharge it, the shorter the life will be.

If you smoke your e-cig consistently, also known to tobacco smokers as being a “chain smoker”, one should expect to receive approximately 2 hours out of every battery, per charge. For those who use the electronic cigarette like a tobacco cigarette, sitting down for a “smoke break”, i.e. the average user, you should be getting anywhere from 4-8 hours, depending on how many “smoke breaks” taken. Basically the two batteries that come with the Instead Electronic Cigarette Set will last almost every eSmoker for an entire day.

How long should an atomizer last?

Atomizers are the small metal piece that screws into the battery. Once you have the atomizer screwed into the battery and remove the mouthpiece, you will find a small metal coil. This coil is what heats up the eLiquid and this “event” is caused by the user taking a drag. Atomizers, based on usage and smoking style, can last anywhere from a couple months to a year. Either way, this is one of those costs with eSmoking and it is ALWAYS suggested that you have at least one extra on hand.

The INSTEAD kit comes with two so not only do you have a spare atomizer, but by switching them back and forth between uses, for example using a different atomizer every day, you can see if the vapor production is still up to par. By being ahead of the game and knowing when the life span is starting to come to an end, you can plan ahead.

How long should a 15ml bottle of eLiquid last? How long should the cartridge last?

These two questions really go hand in hand. A 15ml bottle, using 2-3 drops of eLiquid to yield 7-14 puffs, will last you the equivalent of 300 cigarettes. With every bottle of eLiquid purchased from INSTEAD, you are provided 5 empty cartridges (mouthpieces with the cartridge inside of them).

It is strongly suggested for sanitation purposes, that you go no longer than a week with a mouthpiece. The mouthpieces can last much longer, however after extended usage, the wick (poly-batting inside of the small cartridge in the mouthpiece where the liquid goes), will become compacted and doesn’t seem to hold the liquid as well as it should.

If a bottle of e-Liquid lasts you a week, and remember, a bottle of e-Liquid is approximately 300 cigarettes, then it is suggested that you change out your mouthpiece every other day. If you find yourself with a seasonal ailment like the flu, or you have shared a mouthpiece, again, you might want to consider changing out the mouthpiece. And remember, the mouthpiece can go into the recycling bin!

What should you expect and how much should one plan on spending over the course of a year for an electronic cigarette?

You should expect to enjoy the eSmoking experience. At first, it will be different. There is no doubt that off the start an electronic cigarette is not as easy as lighting a tobacco cigarette. However, once you become comfortable with the process, it becomes easy, if not easier, than smoking a tobacco cigarette. And remember, instead of emptying ashtrays and searching for a lighter or masking the smoke smell from your clothing, you simply pull it out of your pocket, maybe add a little e-liquid, puff away, and then put it away when finished.

Over the course of a year, based on smoking style, most users should expect to be spending on average 45% to 65% less for their nicotine habit. Of course some eSmokers are harder on their hardware and some eSmokers use more e-Liquid than others.

As an example of how much cheaper using an electronic cigarette can be vs smoking cigarettes and using conservative figures, a pack a day smoker at $5 per pack spends $1,825 per year. This same eSmoker would need 24.33 bottles of e-liquid for the year, so:
1 x Instead Electronic Cigarette Set w/ 1 bottle of eliquid = $110
24 x Bottle of E-Liquid at $25 = $600
2 x Replacement Battery at $30 = $60
6 x Replacement Atomizer at $20 = $120
Total: $890 (about a 50% savings over smoking tobacco cigarettes)

This is a “worst case scenario” and would be very unlikely. We also used our more expensive American made E-liquid in this example. You may need to buy a couple atomizers and maybe a battery within that year, but it does show what the minimal savings can be like. Also, we do offer a warranty for the first 30 days and we have found that within this time period, if nothing goes bad, the parts will generally last for months afterward. If you do have bad components after the warranty, contact us and we will work something out with discounts and freebies to keep our customers happy.

1) FDA smoke screen on e-cigarettes in Washington Times by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health

2) American Association of Public Health Physicians writes on behalf of Electronic Cigarettes to the Incoming Director of the FDA by Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair, AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force and Kevin Sherin, MD, MPH, FACPM, FAAFP
President, American Association of Public Health Physicians

3) Disingenuousness of the FDA’s Press Conference is Concerning; FDA and Anti-Smoking Groups are Committing Medical Malpractice on a Massive Scale by Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health

4) FDA’s drug and e-cigarette warnings counterproductive by Jeff Stier, associate director, American Council on Science and Health

5) Technical Review and Analysis of FDA Report: “Evaluation of e-cigarettes” by Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D. from Exponent Health Sciences

6) An Interview With David Sweanor on the E-Cigarette, Tobacco harm reduction, snus and other issues from E Cigarette Direct out of the UK

7) The FDA Crusade Against E-Cigarettes by Brad Rodu, Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville, holds an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center at U of L

8) Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco Researchers Expose Double Standard in the FDA’s Recent Study of Electronic Cigarettes and Challenge the FDA’s Alarmist Attitude Toward the Devices by Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health and Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA, Chair AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force and Brad Rodu, Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville

9) Electronic Cigarette Association Letter To Congress by Matt Salmom, former Congressmen and President of the ECA

10) American Lung Association Asserts that E-Cigarettes are Designed to Promote Cigarette Smoking; Can Anti-Smoking Groups’ Reasoning Get Any More Absurd? by Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health

The articles above do not necessarily represent Instead’s position or opinion and no opinions within these articles should be taken as claims to the health, safety, or use of the electronic cigarette. As we have stated many times in the past, the most healthy thing to do is to quit smoking, period. The electronic cigarette is an alternative for long time smokers who have not been able to quit. It is not healthy or safe, but simply an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Congressmen Steve Buyer, from Indiana’s 4th District took the floor of the House some time ago in opposition of the new tobacco legislation (which was passed and signed by The President). He makes a very good point about tobacco usage; “It’s not the nicotine that kills, it’s the smoke that kills.” He goes on to state that “If you dry and smoke lettuce, you will end up with similar problems than if you smoke tobacco.” This gained some media attention for obvious reasons. Laughter aside, it is a valid point. Burning anything and inhaling it is inherently bad for you. Although inhaling propylene glycol and the flavoring may have problems of it’s own, one thing is certain; electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke.

Here is Steve Buyer making his speech:

And here is a humorous montage dedicated to Buyer’s speech and smoking lettuce: