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

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

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

Details surrounding the argument:

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

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

Seems simple enough.

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

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

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

Hmmm… Which do you think they will choose?

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.

August 29, 2009
Lawrence Deyton, MD
Incoming Director
FDA Center for Tobacco Products
Re: Don’t Write Off Current Smokers

Dear Dr. Deyton:
For the past half century, the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) has served as the national voice of physician directors of state and local health departments and other like-minded physicians. We have long been involved with tobacco control, with the singular goal of doing everything in our power to reduce tobacco related illness and death.

As you assume leadership of the new FDA Center for Tobacco Products, we urge you to consider the actions FDA can take, within the powers granted by this new legislation, to rapidly and substantially reduce tobacco related illness and death in current adult smokers.

Unfortunately, FDA has not gotten off to a good start. FDA condemnation of electronic cigarettes, in its July 22 press conference, and FDA insistence that electronic cigarettes should be regulated as a drug/device combination rather than as a tobacco product makes no sense from a public health perspective. It flies in the face of FDA laboratory findings on other products already approved by FDA. If one looks at electronic cigarettes as a sentinel for all tobacco products less hazardous than conventional cigarettes – the outlook for FDA action reducing tobacco-related illness and death among current adult smokers is dismal.

With this in mind, we respectfully request your consideration of the following actions:

1. We urge FDA to make public the laboratory data behind the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes, along with comparable data on pharmaceutical nicotine products and conventional cigarettes. Then, on the basis of these data, either fully justify or retract the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes.

2. We urge FDA to reclassify electronic cigarettes from a drug/device combination to a tobacco product. This will enable FDA to immediately regulate manufacturing and impose marketing restrictions during this initial period of FDA Tobacco Center development. This reclassification will eliminate pressure on the several hundred thousand current American users of electronic cigarettes to switch back to the much more hazardous conventional cigarettes.

This year, about 400,000 American adult cigarette smokers will die of a tobacco-related illness. Their second hand smoke will kill about 48,000 non-smokers. About 700 more will die in residential fires. Despite progress on other measures of tobacco use, per CDC estimates, this death count continues to inch up from year to year. In contrast, even though smokeless tobacco products represent about 20% of nicotine intake in the United States, the number of deaths per year from these products is too small for reliable estimates from the CDC.

Our (AAPHP) best estimate is that smokeless tobacco products currently cause about 700 cancer deaths per year in the United States. This is less than 1% of the more than 110,000 deaths that would occur each year if smokeless products carried the same mortality as conventional cigarettes.

This last week, Boffetta and Straif published a paper alleging evidence of an increased risk of fatal heart disease and stroke among smokeless tobacco users. This is a study sure to be referenced by those seeking evidence of the harmfulness of smokeless tobacco products. Unfortunately, this study suffers from major technical and ethical flaws, including failure to note in the abstract that they found no increased risk of non-fatal heart attack or stroke. Even worse, of the many studies reviewed, only two showed evidence of even a slight increase in risk of death – and these were the ones selected for the conclusion and abstract. That having been said, their allegations of a 13% increase in risk of fatal heart attack and 40% increase in risk of fatal stroke pale in comparison with the 180% to 300% increases in risk for men and women 35-64 years of age posed by smoking conventional cigarettes.

Contrary to prevailing conventional wisdom, virtually all the heart and lung disease from conventional cigarettes, and an estimated 98% of the cancer mortality, are due to direct inhalation of fresh products of combustion deep into the lung. Our best estimate (based on the work of Pankow et al and others) is that only about 2% of the cancer mortality from cigarettes is from the named carcinogens commonly found in tobacco products. Smokeless tobacco products carry little or no risk of heart disease and no risk of lung disease. They do not kill innocent bystanders and they do not burn down houses. The risk of cancer of any kind from smokeless products ranges from a high of about 5% of the risk of cancer posed by conventional cigarettes to a low well under 1% of the risk of cancer posed by conventional cigarettes. While definitive studies have not been done, we have reason to believe that tobacco products, such as electronic cigarettes, consisting of nicotine extracted from tobacco with only trace amounts of other chemical substances, should carry even less risk.

Most of the discussion to date around the new FDA/Tobacco bill has focused on reducing initiation of nicotine use by children and teens. The only discussion of current smokers has been limited to encouraging use of pharmaceutical products to aid cessation. This has been touted as doubling quit rates – but without mentioning that this doubling is from about 3% to about 5% per year. In other words, this option fails 95% of smokers willing to try it, even under study conditions with optimal counseling.

It should be possible to save the lives of 4 million or more of the 8 million adult American smokers who will otherwise die of a cigarette-related illness over the next twenty years. This could be done by making smokers aware of selected smokeless tobacco products (including but not limited to snus and electronic cigarettes) that promise to reduce the risk of tobacco-related illness by 99% or better for smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. Rather than discouraging nicotine cessation, however, such an approach, even with no medical intervention, would be expected to triple the rate at which current smokers eventually discontinue their nicotine use.

Those writing the new FDA legislation endorsed a harm reduction component to current tobacco control programming, but in a most peculiar way. The law encourages cigarette manufacturers to develop “reduced exposure“ products and market them with no scientific proof that such reductions in exposure will reduce risk. The law then requires presumably new “scientific evidence” for smokeless products, already known to be of substantially lower risk. This makes no sense. The law encourages a harm reduction component to current tobacco control programming that might reduce tobacco-related cancer mortality by one or two percent; while actively discouraging switching to lower risk tobacco products that promise to lower total tobacco-related illness and death by 99% or better.

The secret to success, as we see it, will be to add an effective harm reduction component to current tobacco control programming while using the tools made available by this new law to prevent this new harm reduction
initiative from increasing the numbers of children and teens who initiate tobacco use.

Reconsidering the FDA stance on electronic cigarettes would be the most logical first step.

We look forward to working with FDA to use the powers granted by this new legislation to rapidly and substantially reduce tobacco-related illness and death, among both current and potential future tobacco users.

References:
The data on smoking attributable deaths on page 2 of this letter are from the Centers for Disease Control MMWR report of November 14, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm

The estimate that 20% of current nicotine consumption in the United States is from smokeless tobacco was generated by Mr. William Godshall, based on the formula utilized by Fagerstrom et al, when estimating 2002 nicotine consumption by type of tobacco product in multiple countries.

The discussion on risk of heart disease and stroke from smokeless tobacco products is from Paolo Boffetta and Kurt Straif : Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review with meta-analysis. Published August 18, 2009. BMJ 2009; 339: b3060 [Abstract] [Full text]

The data on relative risk of fatal heart attack and stroke from smoking, in men and women 35-64 years of age, are data from the American Cancer Society as quoted in “Changes in cigarette-related disease risks and their implication for prevention and control.” Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 8. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute 1997;305-382. NIH Publication no. 97-1213.

The other references to the scientific literature that back-up the points made in this letter can be found on the Tobacco Issues page at the http://www.aaphp.org web site. There is an October 2008 “Resolution and White Paper on Tobacco Harm Reduction.” This paper, on pages 6 and 13, includes then-current CDC and AAPHP mortality projections. “The Myth of the Safe Cigarette,” is based on the paper by Pankow et al (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/3/584 ) and others. It makes the case that conventional cigarettes cannot be made measurably safer. The exchange of correspondence with Zhu et al, from a paper published earlier this year, deals with the difference in quit rates, comparing conventional cigarettes to smokeless tobacco products.

Yours,
Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair, AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force
jln@jln-md.com
504 899 7893
Kevin Sherin, MD, MPH, FACPM, FAAFP
President, American Association of Public Health Physicians
ksherin@yahoo.com

Conflict of Interest Disclaimer: Neither of us, nor the American Association of Public Health Physicians, has received or anticipates receipt of any financial support from any tobacco product manufacturer or vendor, or any pharmaceutical firm making nicotine replacement products.

Visit American Association of Public Health Physicians writes on behalf of Electronic Cigarettes to the Incoming Director of the FDA to download the PDF version of the letter.

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

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

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

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

The new Marlboro Brand Protection Act as some are calling it, was signed into law by president Obama on June 22nd, 2009. The actual bill is called H.R.1256, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and essentially gives the FDA regulatory control over tobacco products. Many argue that the Bill simply maintains the current market share by Philip Morris, who helped “kraft” the Bill H.R.1256 has the potential to put very tight restrictions on smoking alternatives that could have otherwise had a net positive effect on public health.

Whether or not it is a good bill or a bad bill, that seems to be in the hands of the FDA who will create the procedures and regulations to govern this age old industry. It is clear the FDA will have a lot of power in determining who makes money from selling tobacco and tobacco products. What is not so clear is how this “Big Tobacco meets FDA Bill” will effect the electronic cigarette. Below is the definition of a tobacco product according to the Bill:

SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.

(a) Definition of Tobacco Products- Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(rr)(1) The term `tobacco product’ means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).

`(2) The term `tobacco product’ does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 503(g).

`(3) The products described in paragraph (2) shall be subject to chapter V of this Act.

`(4) A tobacco product shall not be marketed in combination with any other article or product regulated under this Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement).’.

The Electronic Cigarette as a Tobacco Product

I believe we can make a couple assumptions. First, the e-cigarette with zero nicotine would certainly NOT fall into the definition of a tobacco product. In this case, there is no nicotine, no tobacco, no drug…..just propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, water, and flavoring. Second, the actual electronic cigarette device (battery, atomizer, mouthpiece/cartridge) could not be considered a tobacco product. So, the only thing that could be classified as a tobacco product would be the eliquid. But eliquid can be made with synthetic nicotine or with a compound similar to nicotine or with nicotine from another source other than tobacco. And if it is, then there would be no part of it derived from tobacco. The other argument is that nicotine extracted from a tobacco plant and purified is so far removed from the original plant that it ceases to be a tobacco product. This falls in line with the FDA’s current assertion that the electronic cigarette is a new drug and therefore needs approval.

The Electronic Cigarette as a New Drug

First off, it is a stretch to claim nicotine is a “new drug”, when in fact it is one of the oldest drugs used by man. Second, if the definition of a drug must include “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals” then the electronic cigarette does not fall into this category. Using the e-cigarette is smoking, it doesn’t cure it (if smoking is even a disease to begin with). Some call it vaping, but it is still the habit of hand to mouth. Drug addiction is considered a disease by the CDC. So does the electronic cigarette diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent drug addiction? Since e-smokers continue to get the nicotine, then NO. Users could use the zero nicotine eliquid, but there is no evidence that they will or even if they do, that they will stick with it and not go back to nicotine. If electronic cigarettes treat nicotine addiction then cola treats caffeine addiction.

So What is the Electronic Cigarette?

As many of us in this industry have stated from the beginning, the electronic cigarette is unique. It is a technology that will continue to create ripples well into the future. This doesn’t mean it should be given a free pass and it doesn’t mean it should be pulled off the market. It means we need to have rational and intelligent discussions with regulatory bodies to ensure the industry follows standards and consumers are protected. Instead of these discussions, the e-cigarette industry has been attacked by politicians with local agenda’s, by public health organizations with money ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and the FDA who seems to take orders from the pharmaceutical companies. Considering the size and scope of smoking cessation sales in the US and worldwide, it is not hard to contemplate the drive to protect the market.

The e-cigarette industry has begun the process of legitimizing the industry through the formation of the Electronic Cigarette Association. Although a very young organization with much yet needed to be done, the ECA strives to implement standards and bring trust to this new industry. The ideal situation would be for the FDA to work with the ECA to create standards while using industry money to regulate, rather than tax payer dollars. Prohibition didn’t work. The “quit or die” philosophy doesn’t work. And banning products that have the potential of the electronic cigarette can not possibly be in the best interest of public health.

With the increasing publicity the electronic cigarette is receiving, many people are out there stating some misconceptions regarding the electronic cigarette. Today, we would like to address those common misconceptions, and hopefully, put an end to these wild tall tales.

1. “Electronic Cigarettes are being Sold to Kids” – While there may be some unscrupulous sellers out there who are not checking age, most suppliers are treating the sale of electronic cigarettes, just as they would a tobacco product. Many of the reputable companies selling electronic cigarettes were created by smokers who know how hard smoking is on the human body, how hard it is to get the habit out of the system once it has started, and just don’t think that the electronic cigarette is a product for children. INSTEAD has a very strict policy on who we feel are reasonable customers and if you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to read up on our Electronic Cigarette Smoker Qualifications.

2. “Candy Flavors are Marketed to Children Specifically” – Guess what? Adults like candy flavors too. Why else would they have had to add flavors like Fruit Chill to the nicotine gum? One could argue that this is a way to market nicotine to children, but we certainly don’t hear that coming from any anti-smoking campaigns.

This has always been an interesting debate because many discuss that flavors target market children specifically. They always seem to leap to this idea that only kids like flavor. While we currently do not stock any flavors but menthol and tobacco flavor, in the future if we ever did offer flavors, it would be because we market our product to adults, not to children. If adults didn’t like flavors, there wouldn’t be 12 current flavors of vodka available from one manufacturer.

3. “The Electronic Cigarette is Banned” – No. The electronic cigarette is not banned. What is happening right now is there are some hard core anti-smoking groups who honestly believe that the only philosophy available is the “Quit or Die Smoking” philosophy. In having this philosophy, they feel the only products that should be on the market are either tobacco cigarettes or FDA approved quit smoking devices.

They also feel that all nicotine products should be regulated by the FDA so that they can become harder and more expensive to obtain. Currently, there are two US suppliers of the electronic cigarette who have sued the FDA, noting that the electronic cigarette shipments that were stopped from importation into the United States were done so unjustly.

How could the FDA have done this? Well, the FDA has every right to stop any product that makes any specific health claims. For example, stating that the e-cig is a healthier way to smoke is a health claim. Also, stating that the e-cig will help you quit smoking is a promise of results which is also a claim. These types of marketing claims are in fact the jurisdiction of the FDA. INSTEAD has noted several times that we agree with this philosophy. However, several shipments were stopped against companies who weren’t making these claims and therefor, the FDA did not have the right to stop said shipments.

When the media and the anti-smoking groups heard that the electronic cigarette was taking the United States by storm, they decided to latch onto this idea that they are a banned product and it is illegal to import them. The philosophy was if we make people think they are illegal, then maybe they won’t buy them. Our argument is that if they were in fact banned, there would be mention on the FDA website somewhere of this and in fact, there is not. No official statement has been made by the FDA, other than they are looking at the electronic cigarette on a case by case basis.

4. “We Have No Idea What Is In the Electronic Cigarette”. All of our eliquid comes with proper labeling that identifies the ingredients. Every bottle we sell tells you exactly what is being offered. We only purchase from trusted manufacturers that we have spent years with. They have provided us with lab reports to include a list of ingredients. Currently, we are offering two types of eliquid: That manufactured here in the US and that manufactured overseas in China.

5. “These are made in China!” – Yes. The hardware is made in China. And currently, as we noted just above, we have two different types of liquid of which one, is manufactured right here in the United States. What we find extremely interesting is that many “American Made” products are actually manufactured in China and do no harm to consumers. Likewise, there are also many products made right here in the United States that do hurt consumers. We need not revisit the Peanut Butter fiasco that has occurred over the past several years. A problem that was well documented and completely ignored.

So what we all have to remember is that it isn’t countries that do bad things and it isn’t companies that do bad things. It is bad people doing bad things.

6. “The Electronic Cigarette will help you Quit Smoking” – This is an interesting one. While you may eventually exchange your tobacco cigarette or a whole pack of tobacco cigarettes for your electronic cigarette, are you really quitting smoking? The definition of smoking varies and in the past, has included the burning of something or the combustion, for our purposes we will stick to tobacco as the example as there are many things that are actually referred to as “smoking”. But definitions have changed over time to include more meaning and “smoking” may have included combustion in the past, but in the future, it should also include “vaporization”.

As many smokers know, smoking as a habit includes more than just the burning of the tobacco, it includes the hand to mouth, the inhalation, the exhalation. It is a process. Now, the FDA approved nicotine replacement therapies like the nicotine gum, the nicotine patch, even Chantix, those help you quit smoking as they do not include any of the other portion of the smoking activity. You are given the nicotine and that is it. The electronic cigarette on the other hand does only one thing: It removes the burning of the tobacco. You still receive nicotine (or not if you choose to go with the no-nicotine liquids). You still bring your hand to your mouth, over and over. You still take a drag to inhale and exhale. You are still participating heavily in the action of smoking.

Finally, those who find the electronic cigarette and go in with the mindset to quit smoking, will be greatly upset when they find out that they enjoy their electronic cigarette just like they enjoy their tobacco cigarettes. God forbid anything happens to your e-cig like you forget they are in your pocket and go jump into the lake with your friends. ESmokers find that they can easily go from tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes and back to tobacco cigarettes. Now, most e-cigarette users we have talked with find that their tobacco cigarettes no longer taste good and they prefer their e-cig. However in a pinch, they will switch back. How in the world is that quitting? It simply isn’t.

7. “We Have No Idea What Is In the Vapor!” – Yes we do. And we know what isn’t in the vapor. We know that since there is no combustion, many of the toxins produced from combustion are not present. A recent study was done by Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand on the vapor and his results were very positive. Considering that the base of the vapor is made up of what goes into a fog machine or these particularly interesting vapor toys, if “vaporization toys” can be sold safely to children, then they should be legal for sale to adults.

Now, many refuse to acknowledge that such testing has in fact been done. Why? Because it wasn’t done here in the United States. Furthermore, they are now arguing that these tests are not valid as they were funded by the manufacturers. Our question back would be who funded the testing for all of the FDA approved products? It certainly wasn’t some advocacy group who wanted to make sure that men with ED could continue to perform. It was the manufacturer.

So there are some common misconceptions regarding the electronic cigarette. Whether this is the product for you is up to you to decide. Most people love it and there are some who would rather stick with tobacco. But either way, no matter what you choose, you should have that right to choose.

If you are interested in further information regarding the electronic cigarette, please feel free to paroose our blog.

5) We have fabulous customer service. If you have any issues with your batteries, atomizers, or charger, just email us or call us at (321) 256-0486 and we will troubleshoot the problem and get you out replacement parts. Even if you are just not sure how everything works, contact us and we will help out.

4) The Instead Electronic Cigarette Kits are unique. We are e-smokers and know what is needed to have a great e-smoking experience. We include 2 batteries and 2 atomizers so you will always have what is needed to smoking your e-cig. Our kits also come with a water resistant storage tin and a velvet carrying pouch, not to mention small zip lock bags to store parts or cartridges that you fill up!

3) ELiquid! The Instead ELiquid is made in America. Each bottle is approximately equivalent to 300 tobacco cigarettes. The bottles are glass with a childproof cap, proper labeling, and a separate dropper. Each kit and each bottle we sell comes with 5 brand new empty cartridges. Curious about prefilled cartridges? We are e-smokers and are not big fans of prefilled cartridges. Read about why we no longer carry prefilled e-cigarette cartridges.

2) Instead works hard for the industry. We are very active on industry forums and with the ECA. We believe every smoker should have the freedom to choose an alternative to a known killer and will fight to that end. We also believe there needs to be standards in the industry and are working to make that a reality.

1) Experience! We have been using electronic cigarettes for about 2 years and selling them for almost as long. We know about the different styles and models and which are good and which are not so good. We know e-cigarette tricks and tips (many of which we share on this blog) to make your e-smoking experience satisfying. We know how to trouble shoot problems when they do arise. This experience is your assurance that we are up on the latest technology and that our e-cig sets contain some of the best products on the market.

Buy Instead Electronic Cigarettes

Here’s an update:

THE FDA
For the past few months, the FDA has been stopping a few smaller shipments of electronic cigarettes at the border. In the past couple weeks, they have begun stopping large shipments being brought in by some of the larger suppliers in the United States. One of those suppliers has decided to sue the FDA. The argument is that the electronic cigarette is functionally a cigarette and thereby falls outside the jurisdiction of the FDA. The FDA’s stance appears to be that the electronic cigarette is a medical device and the nicotine solution is a new drug. Together they are a combination product. The actual stance of the FDA will become clear very soon as they apparently plan a media blitz to publicize the FDA stance on the electronic cigarette.
UPDATE: The FDA media blitz was postponed indefinitely
UPDATE: NJoy has officially entered the lawsuit of the FDA vs the Electronic Cigarette
UPDATE: The FDA made an announcement on electronic cigarettes and misled the public about electronic cigarettes in an apparent attempt to influence the lawsuit and/or turn the public against the product.
UPDATE: A group of electronic cigarette smokers has filed an Amicus Brief in the lawsuit against the FDA.

THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE ASSOCIATION
A few weeks ago, a bunch of electronic cigarette suppliers met in Chicago to begin the formation of the Electronic Cigarette Association. The Association’s goal will be to battle misinformation about the e-cigarette, to educate the public and policy makers about the product, to ensure electronic cigarette suppliers and manufacturers follow certain safety, labeling, and marketing guidelines, and to work with policy makers to ensure smokers have the right to choose an alternative to a known killer. Matt Salmon has been nominated as the President of the ECA. View Matt Salmon’s Video Message.

THE WAXMAN TOBACCO BILL
As we speak, the Senate is getting ready to vote on the Waxman Tobacco Bill, officially known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This Bill gives the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. Although this sounds like a great idea, the issue is this: Philip Morris (Altria) supports the Bill. Once read, it is easy to see why. The Bill allows the FDA to keep smoking alternatives off the market. Although they are limited in that they can’t keep all alternatives off the market, they can pick and choose. Philip Morris also gets a position on an advisory board dealing with the regulation of these products. Although it is a non voting seat, it still allows them to influence which competing products are allowed to be brought to the market.
UPDATE: The Waxman Bill has become The Kennedy Tobacco Bill
UPDATE: The FDA Tobacco Bill was signed into law by President Obama, but the language in it appears to exclude the electronic cigarette so long as it doesn’t contain a tobacco product.

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES VS TOBACCO CIGARETTES
The stance that Instead Electronic Cigarettes takes is this: the electronic cigarette is an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. Tobacco cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year. Is the e-cigarette safer? Not sure yet….but compare the ingredients. ELiquid is made up of propylene glycol, water, flavoring, and nicotine. Tobacco smoke contains Ammonia, Acetone, Arsenic, Carbon Monoxide, Cyanide, Formaldehyde, Methane, Nicotine, Tar, Toluene to name some of the bad ones out of the almost 5000 chemicals found in tobacco smoke. There has been some testing done on the electronic cigarette in other countries with very positive results. Testing is underway in the US. People have been using the electronic cigarette for about 7 years worldwide. There have been no reported cases of ill effects (unless you are allergic to propylene glycol, in which case the vapor will cause irritation). Why is the electronic cigarette being held to higher standards than tobacco cigarettes? And if it is higher standards you want, what are they? We as an industry are happy to comply with reasonable standards. With that said, if we push the e-cigarette through the pharmaceutical route, it may be years before we see it and it will likely get priced the same way that the nicotine gum is…..more expensive than smoking. Why does the FDA insist on making anything with nicotine in it jump through so many hoops? Is nicotine or smoking the problem? Are they trying to keep people smoking tobacco? Seriously.

PUBLIC HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS
So, why are many (not all) of the larger public health organizations against the e-cigarette? For one, misinformation. Many believe the e-cigarette is being marketed to kids. While this may be true of some unscrupulous suppliers, the vast majority of US suppliers do not market or sell to kids and don’t want kids to use this adult product. In fact, we at Instead don’t want non smokers to use it. We just want every smoker in the world to switch to e-cigarettes. That’s it.

Another argument is that companies are marketing the electronic cigarette as a quit smoking product. Again, this is true of some, but not of the vast majority of US suppliers. We at Instead don’t believe this is a quit smoking product. We believe it is an alternative….something else to do. It may or may not be better for you, but it should be the choice of the smoker to decide what is best for him or her. It is sad that public health organizations haven’t taken a more active role in determining the safety of the e-cigarettes and doing a scientific comparison of the vapor vs tobacco smoke. Instead, they have chosen to come out against it with no basis other than “it hasn’t been proven to be safe”. True, but it certainly hasn’t been proven to be unsafe either. We as an industry are moving to provide scientific data about the safety of the e-cigarette. We just need a little time. A little help might speed things up.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN
That is the 2 Billion+ dollar question. There are undeniably large forces with a vested interest in this market. As an e-smoker or as someone who cares about the damage caused by tobacco smoke, we need your help. We are a small industry. We are small American businesses. But with a little public support, we have a chance to balance the scales. They may have the money, but we can have the numbers.

WHAT CAN I DO?
1) Write your Senators and other elected officials. Tell them about your experience with the electronic cigarette. Send it certified mail. Find out who is your Senator . Find out who is your Congressman. Write President Obama.

2) Contact your local Tobacco Free Kids, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and other public health organizations to inform them about your experience with the electronic cigarette. Give your money away wisely.

3) Contact The FDA to express your opinion about the electronic cigarette.

4) Tell those around you about the electronic cigarette and what is going on.

5) Create a video about your experience and email it to us. We are working with others to put together a compilation video of esmokers discussing their experience.

6) Sign up for the newsletter and give money or time to the Electronic Cigarette Association.

CONCLUSION
The electronic cigarette represents a choice to a known killer. Choice is not only good, it is the fundamental basis of our society. Choice is freedom.

Today, a wonderful idea was presented by a fellow eSmoker on something that we can all do to help in our campaign of getting the world to know about the positive benefits of the electronic cigarette, proven or not.

We would like to put together a video of 10 second slots of every eSmoker we know answering one simple question:  How has the Electronic Cigarette impacted your life?  Think about it.  Can you sum it up in 10 seconds?  Then we want it!  Couples!  Feel free to do your videos together.  Give yourselves 20 seconds to show your love for the electronic cigarette!

Here is what we would like you to do:

Please speak clearly.  Sound quality is most important.  Start your recording device, sit for a second or two, and then give your ten second answer.  Wait a second or two and then turn off your video recording device.  (This allows for transitions).  When you are done, email your video to us.   That’s it!  That’s all you have to do!

So send in your submissions!  We are ready to get started and as we need to get your voices heard, we are asking that all submissions be submitted no later than May 8th!  That’s a week from this Friday!

What will this be used for?   We are hoping that this video will get enough views that it will make it’s way to those on the Hill and into the media.  We need people to see that the electronic cigarette has impacted a large user base and to take it away from them would be devastating.

So start submitting those videos!  When the 10 minute video is done, we will post it here so you can see!