We believe vaping, like smoking, is an adult activity. Therefore we do have some restrictions and policies for all those looking to purchase the Instead brand electronic cigarette. Please read the points below before purchasing to ensure that you understand our policies.

1) You must be of legal smoking age to use this website or to purchase an electronic cigarette. If you are a minor, please leave this site. If you are interested in electronic cigarettes, for whatever reason, please talk to your parents.

2) We require users to verify their age upon checkout. This includes taking an action to agree to our terms of use and that the user is of legal smoking age in their region. We also require the user to create an account which includes their date of birth, billing information, and shipping address. This information is stored on our secure sever.

3) We require orders to be signed for upon delivery. This may be an inconvenience for some, but it does help ensure that minors do not have access to the product. This also helps protect us and you from any missing packages. The cost of signature confirmation is included in our flat rate shipping costs.

4) We do not ship nicotine e-liquid or cartridges to Connecticut. You can still get the zero nicotine product. This is our policy due to the stance of the CT Attorney General. To get updates on the States that we don’t ship the nicotine e-liquid to, visit restrictions on shipping the Instead electronic cigarette.

Due to pressure by certain State Attorney Generals and State Legislation enacted regarding the sale of electronic cigarettes we will NOT ship e-liquid or cartridges containing NICOTINE to the state(s) listed below. We WILL continue to sell our kits, electronic cigarette batteries, atomizer, chargers, accessories, and zero nicotine e-liquid and cartridges to all states. Please note that even without nicotine, many smokers still find the electronic cigarette is be a great alternative to smoking cigarettes and can still get their nicotine from a variety of sources including tobacco products or NRTs.

States We Don’t Ship Nicotine E-liquid or Cartridges To:

Connecticut – Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal has publicly come out against e-cigarettes and contacted some suppliers about selling electronic cigarettes in Connecticut. Although he has not taken any formal steps, we do not have the resources to enter a legal battle with Mr. Blumenthal. If you purchase the nicotine e-liquid and it is to be shipped to Connecticut, your order will be held and you will be contacted for options which include switching your order to zero nicotine or receiving a refund. If you live in Connecticut and believe it is unfair that your AG is limiting your smoking options to only tobacco cigarettes (the most deadly product on the market today) please contact your AG with your opinion.

Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA, Chair, Tobacco Control Task Force, American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) has created two petitions and sent them to the FDA. The first argues that the FDA should classify the electronic cigarette as a reduced harm tobacco product and abandon the idea that it is a new drug. Dr. Nitzkin and the AAPHP make many arguments as to why the e-cigarette as a reduced harm tobacco product is in the best interest of public health.

The second petition asks the FDA to follow up on their July 22nd, 2009 press conference to, “amend certain statements on the basis of new information provided as text and attachments to the two AAPHP petitions being submitted today.”

The petitions begin as follows:

Dear FDA:

The undersigned submits this petition under the provisions of the new Tobacco Center legislation for which authority has been delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs under 21 CFR 5.10 to request the Commissioner of Food and drugs to reclassify nicotine vaporizers, also known as “Ecigarettes” or “electronic cigarettes” from “drug-device combinations under 201(g) and 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, to “tobacco product” under the new FDA/Tobacco legislation.

This is one of two petitions I am submitting today on behalf of the Tobacco Control Task Force of the American Association of Public Health Physicians. The other petition is a request to FDA to follow-up on its July 22, 2009 press release with another press release to amend certain statements on the basis of new information provided as attachments to both of these petitions.

We have generated these petitions because reclassification of E-cigarettes to tobacco products could open the door to a new harm reduction component to current tobacco control programming. That new component, in turn, could rapidly and substantially reduce tobacco-related illness and death without increasing the numbers of teens initiating nicotine use.

Neither I nor AAPHP have received or anticipate receipt of any financial support from any
electronic cigarette enterprise, any other tobacco-related enterprise, or any pharmaceutical enterprise.

Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair, Tobacco Control Task Force, American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP)

To download and read the petitions, visit AAPHP FDA Petition 1 and AAPHP FDA Petition 2. For more about the AAPHP visit the American Association of Public Health Physicians’ website.

“They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette,” said Dr. Thomas Eissenberg, from the Virginia Commonwelth University’s Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies.

This quote was from a CNN article titled “Study: ‘Electronic cigarettes’ don’t deliver”. This article was apparently released before the actual study was released.

When available, we recommend all e-smokers and those with a vested interested in electronic cigarettes and public health, read The Study of Electronic Cigarettes by Dr. Thomas Eissenberg from the Virginia Commonwealth University.
UPDATE: Due to potential copyright issues, the link to this study has been removed

According to Dr. Eissenberg’s graphs:

UPDATE: Graph removed due to potential copyight issues

The study subjects were not getting much nicotine in their systems, but their cravings for a cigarette were decreased as compared to the “Sham”…..even if it wasn’t significantly.

Please note that they used 16 mg/ml e-liquid in the cartridges and the participants were instructed to take 10 puffs from the chosen e-cigarette with 30 seconds between each puff. Individual usage would likely change the results of not only the nicotine content, but presumably of the craving for a cigarette. As the study itself notes, “Variability in product design may influence vapour content and chronic use and/or more intensive puffing (ie, more puffs, greater puff volume) may influence nicotine delivery.”

Based on this study, there appears to be very little danger from nicotine in electronic cigarette vapor. It also appears that the electronic cigarette may not be a suitable quit smoking device.

Good thing the Instead Electronic Cigarette is a smoking alternative. Read, enjoy, and decide for yourself if you want to keep smoking tobacco cigarettes or try an electronic cigarette.

* Clinical information about this study, named “Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices Marketed to Smokers” can be found at ClinicalTrials.gov.
* This Study on Electronic Cigarettes was published in Tobacco Control, February 2010 Vol 19 No 1

The Utah State Legislature is considering two Bills both of which target the electronic cigarette. These Bills will not both be passed in their current form as they contradict each other, however if either gets passed they will effect adult access to electronic cigarettes in Utah.

The first Bill, H.B. 88 – ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE RESTRICTIONS bans the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. We agree with this portion of the legislation. However it goes on to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes that contain nicotine over the internet. The obvious assumption here is that it is easier for minors to purchase e-cigarettes on the internet. And although this may seem to be rational, consider this:

1) Reputable online retailers of electronic cigarettes collect and store customer information including name, address, and date of birth.

2) Reputable online retailers of electronic cigarettes make consumers take action to verify they are of legal smoking age.

3) Reputable online retailers of electronic cigarettes almost exclusively take credit cards as payment and have the card information verified.

4) Reputable online retailers of electronic cigarettes require a signature to accept delivery of sold products.

5) Electronic cigarette kits have a much higher price tag than a pack of cigarettes. Minors are much more price sensitive as a general rule.

Now consider this; for decades kids have found ways to get tobacco cigarettes. Stealing from parents, having an older friend buy them, having a fake ID, or not getting ID’d at all are pretty common ways for minors to get cigarettes. Compare this to stealing a credit card, having all the associated credit card information, falsely entering stored personal information onto a website, and taking and signing for a delivery without parents finding out. Which sounds more likely to happen?

Limiting access for adult smokers to a non-combustible nicotine product does not protect kids.

The second potential Bill, H.B. 71 – NICOTINE PRODUCT RESTRICTIONS bans all nicotine products in Utah that are not cigarettes, cigars, products that contain actual tobacco or nicotine products approved by the FDA. So, it bans the sale of electronic cigarettes and potentially other nicotine products that aren’t yet classified and don’t actually contain tobacco. The issue here is that there is currently a lawsuit pending against the FDA to determine the classification of the electronic cigarette. Once this is settled, it is likely the electronic cigarette will be included in sellable nicotine products in Utah. However until it is settled, Utah would be denying adult smokers access to electronic cigarettes, which have not been proven to cause any harm, while allowing the sale of tobacco cigarettes, which cause substantial harm to the user.

We believe H.B. 71 is premature and encourage the Utah State Legislature to postpone any law banning the electronic cigarette until such time as it is categorized. Passing a law denying minors access to nicotine products is responsible. Passing a law denying adults smokers alternatives to their deadly tobacco cigarettes is counter productive to public health and common sense.

We encourage all Utah residents who use an electronic cigarette, or believe in the freedom to choose an alternative to a known killer, contact their state representative and the Governor, Gary R. Herbert, to let them know that these two Bills are counterproductive to public health. Let them know about your experience with the electronic cigarette or how smoking tobacco has effected your family.

CONTACT YOUR UTAH STATE REPRESENTATIVES or if that doesn’t work, try FINDING YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HERE

CONTACT THE GOVERNOR OF UTAH

We recommend an email and if possible a certified letter addressing your concerns over your State limiting your access to electronic cigarettes and other alternatives to tobacco cigarettes.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom has opened up the discussion about making all non tobacco nicotine products, including electronic cigarettes, a pharmaceutical. Specifically they are looking to make manufacturers of these nicotine products apply for a medicines Marketing Authorisation (MA) before marketing the products in the UK.

Obtaining the Marketing Authorisation (US: Authorization) from the MHRA in the UK is “generally submitted by the pharmaceutical industry, but anyone with the necessary supporting data may apply for a licence.” according to the MHRA website. It goes on to state, “The life cycle of a new medicine begins with discovery and laboratory studies carried out by the pharmaceutical company.”

It is pretty clear that forcing the electronic cigarette containing nicotine……who’s effects are well known, into this regulatory framework is no less than handing the pharmaceutical companies a new product to have a monopoly over. We at INSTEAD Electronic Cigarettes are against handing this industry over to the pharmaceutical industry.

So why is pharmaceutical control over the electronic cigarette a bad thing? Here’s why:

1) Giving any company or group of companies a monopoly is bad for the public. It means less options, higher cost to the consumer, and less recourse when consumer issues arise.

2) Not allowing electronic cigarettes to fairly compete with tobacco cigarettes means more people smoking and less people vaping. As a pharmaceutical, the electronic cigarette could be prescription only and even more likely to only be sold in pharmacies while tobacco is sold in many high traffic areas.

Even Philip Morris knows that making electronic cigarettes a pharmaceutical is good for them. They submitted “Philip Morris Limitied’s Response to the Department of Health’s Consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control” in September of 2008 and on page 46 they state, ‘…pharmaceutical regulation appears to be the only viable option for them [electronic cigarettes] today. The DH suggests, however, that such products would only be regulated as a medicinal product if sold with claims that the product “will help people quit smoking… However, if no such claims are made explicitly in the packaging or marketing, these products remain largely unregulated.” This is unacceptable.’ Of course this is unacceptable to the largest tobacco company in the world. Here is a product that directly competes with their product. Regulation is the best friend of big business….it keeps out competition. We should mention that PM also mentions the possibility of relaxing the pharmaceutical regulatory framework to accommodate tobacco harm reduction or create a new framework that encompasses both tobacco and reduced harm nicotine products. It’s too bad that they obviously didn’t push too hard for these ideas.

3) Since the electronic cigarette would now be a medicine, it would need to treat something. This is against what we have found; smokers like smoking. They just want to do it, recreationally, with the least possible risk. Marketing the electronic cigarette as a way to “quit smoking” and possibly even placing a stop usage date on it would undermine it’s ability to move people who enjoy smoking over to vaping. Giving the impression that electronic cigarettes gets people off of nicotine is misleading and could result in smokers continuing to smoke rather than trying an alternative.

So, if you live in the UK, what can you do? You can read about the proposed regulation here. You can submit your comments to the MHRA here.

We recommend all e-smokers in the UK ask for either a separate regulatory framework for this unique product or the creation of a subcategory as a reduced harm tobacco product. The bottom line is that if tobacco cigarettes, which are known to be deadly, are allowed to be freely sold on the market, then so should smoking alternatives such as the electronic cigarette.

I was in our local Mall the other day and ran into an electronic cigarette kiosk. Curiosity killed the cat as the old saying goes, so I stopped in to hear what the salesperson had to say.

The first thing that caught my attention was the claim that one could quit smoking with the electronic cigarette. Throughout the two plus years we have been blogging about the e-cig, we have hashed this one out over and over. There is no scientific proof that the electronic cigarette helps the user quit smoking. Also, the action of smoking is still there and can you really quit an action if you are still participating in that action? While you might be eliminating the effects of combustion by switching to a vaporizer, you are still getting nicotine and according to the Center for Disease Control, nicotine addiction is the disease, not necessarily smoking. We understand why the pharmaceutical companies and the “public health” organizations (who get their money from the pharmaceutical companies), want to call it a quit smoking device….so they can be the only ones to sell it. What we don’t understand is why e-cigarette suppliers want to make the quit smoking claim just to try and sell a few more kits while misleading the public and putting our entire industry at risk. We believe it is a smoking alternative, pure and simple.

The second claim I heard was that the electronic cigarette is the healthier way to smoke. While we firmly believe vaporization is superior to combustion for a whole host of reasons, there are currently no clinical studies on the long term effects of electronic cigarette vapor. You may read from other dedicated e-Smokers that they see huge differences in their own health, but there is still no evidence of what the long term effects might actually be.

Another statement that jumped out was the ingredients that are claimed to be in this particular brands liquids; nicotine and water. This is not true…..or at least not completely true. Pure water needs a much higher temperature in order to vaporize so the base of all current e-liquids is either propylene glycol or glycerin or a combination of both. Propylene glycol is used widespread through many products currently on the market and the closest comparison would be for inhalation medicines like asthma inhalers. The idea that we are simply blowing out water vapor is untrue. What was interesting is that this company referenced Dr. Laugesen’s original study on the electronic cigarette vapor, yet missed the important fact that the vapor is not just water.

While wandering around the kiosk taking in all of the information, I ran across a handout compiled by the company to appear as a report from the FDA. According to the wording on this flyer, the FDA proved through recent testing that the e-Liquid was in fact 1400 times safer than tobacco cigarettes. This is not true. It is also not true that they determined e-cigarettes to be dangerous. In fact, the FDA testing was so poorly done it is hard to draw any relevant conclusions.

When it was all said and done, it was apparent the salesman was regurgitating what he had been told to say. For instance, he was completely unaware of the fact that ecigs have been in the US for almost three years now (he told me 4 months!). He also mentioned all other brands were knock-offs. Also not true. There may be many brands available, but very few have been on the market as long as the INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette (Established 2007).

I will give this kiosk one thing; Instead of putting kits, liquids and cartridges out on the kiosk counter, the only thing within reach were videos and flyers. All product was kept in locked drawers that consumers could not see into. The one sample was in a locked glass case directly in front of the cash register where the salesperson sat. If a supplier is going to go the kiosk route, this is the way to go. It makes it impossible for those young teen hands from grabbing stock and running.

We wrote this blog post not to discredit any particular company or method of sales, but rather to battle some of the misinformation being presented to the public. These falsities mislead consumers, misrepresent the industry, and give electronic cigarette opponents more ammo to recklessly shoot.

The question is ‘What kind of regulation?’

Some opponents of electronic cigarettes have stated they believe those who manufacturer and sell electronic cigarettes are trying to skirt regulation by the FDA. They ask “why don’t they just go through the normal NRT process like the nicotine gum or patch?”. I will answer these questions from the perspective of one company who sells electronic cigarettes.

We are NOT opposed to regulation. In fact one of the reasons we helped form the Electronic Cigarette Association is because we believe there does need to be a certain level of regulation. This includes, among other things, how it is manufactured, how it can be marketed, proper warnings, and most certainly keeping it out of the hands of minors. Some of these regulations are easy to implement and others will take time and help from an agency such as the FDA.

We ARE opposed to becoming an NRT. We strongly believe that the electronic cigarette should be allowed to freely compete with tobacco cigarettes on the open market. As an NRT, a product must be sold in pharmacies either with or without a prescription. NRTs are often more expensive than tobacco cigarettes. NRTs come with a stop usage date…..hence the claims of “quit smoking” which is really “quit using nicotine”. Placing these restrictions on electronic cigarettes create an unfair advantage for those who sell tobacco cigarettes.

I suppose the question is; if adults can legally choose to smoke tobacco cigarettes for as long as they like, why can’t they legally choose to use electronic cigarettes for as long as they like? For those who want to make claims such as “the electronic cigarette helps you quit smoking”, then they should do the proper clinical trials to prove that, submit it to the FDA, and then go sell it in pharmacies as a quit smoking product.

We applaud Matt Salmon, President of the ECA, in this Reuters article when he said, “We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be necessary, and we welcome that. Our goal, nevertheless, is to ensure committed adult smokers the freedom of a clear, better alternative and to prohibit sales to minors”.

On October 1st, we had reported in our blog post Tobacco Kills. E-Cigarettes, Not Sure. So Smoke Tobacco, Siobhan DeLancey, Press Officer at FDA, stated:

“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,” DeLancey said.

A recently published study done in 1996 on the long term effects of inhaled nicotine is now available.

The Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Tronheim, Norway, found:

“Tobacco smoking has been reported to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, particularly of the lungs. In spite of extensive research on the health effects of tobacco smoking, the substances in tobacco smoke exerting these negative health effects are not completely known. Nicotine is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking as well as inducing addiction. For the first time we report the effect on the rat of long-term (two years) inhalation of nicotine. The rats breathed in a chamber with nicotine at a concentration giving twice the plasma concentration found in heavy smokers. Nicotine was given for 20 h a day, five days a week during a two-year period. We could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls. Particularly, there was no microscopic or macroscopic lung tumors nor any increase in pulmonary neuroendocrine cells. Throughout the study, however, the body weight of the nicotine exposed rats was reduced as compared with controls. In conclusion, our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation.”

Please note this study was not done on the electronic cigarette. The e-Liquid in an electronic cigarette is not pure nicotine. The e-Liquid is generally comprised of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, water, and flavorings. No long term studies have been done to show the electronic cigarette vapor is safe to humans. The product has been used worldwide for about 5 years and in the US for over 2 years. To date there are no reported serious side effects.

If you are now wondering about the propylene glycol, studies have been done on the inhalation of propylene glycol by the EPA and “the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol.” But again, please note that this was not a study of long term, direct inhalation of PG.

It is clear that in the current quest for public health, there is some serious misinformation going on. It appears that there is a clear lack of understanding between the differences of combustion and vaporization and that it is no longer the burden of the accuser to show proof that the electronic cigarette vapor is in fact dangerous.

One “public health” organization, who we will not name, hasn’t even updated their own research links page regarding scientific studies since 2005. Considering this, it is no wonder they are trapped in a bubble and not seeing the electronic cigarette for what it is and that is an alternative to something that kills over 400,000 Americans per year.

All we ask is that those in the public health sector keep an open mind to the technology, base decisions on the most current science available, and work with the electronic cigarette industry rather than against it, to make sure smokers have all the necessary information to make a decision for themselves.

The current studies and science on the electronic cigarette is not perfect, as it never is. And yes, more testing needs to be done. And yes, in the meantime this is an alternative to smoking tobacco which kills a good percentage of it’s users.

Smoking bans have been popping up across the United States for over a decade now. There is evidence on both sides regarding the harmful affects of second hand smoke. Some studies show that second hand smoke is detrimental to those around the smoker and some studies have shown that with proper air ventilation, second hand smoke is not an issue.

Smoking bans also present a great problem to the free market where these bans are literally dictating what a business owner can and cannot do in their own private business. These bans are beginning to filtrate into private homes and cars.

Smoking is an adult behavior. Just as drinking alcohol and engaging in sexual activity are considered adult behaviors. But as we have learned over the years, shielding children from being educated in making responsible choices once they become adults, only causes children to make irresponsible choices while they are children.

So what do smoking bans really accomplish? Do they really accomplish a greater sense of public health? Do they create a distaste for “big government”? Are smoking bans backwards?

Let’s look at the history of smoking bans, in a nutshell of course. At first, anti-smoking advocates were against smoking inside because of the compact conditions and poor air movement quality. Their concern was that non-smoking workers and patrons could not get away from second hand smoke as it does have a tendency to “sit” in the air. The argument was that workers do not have a choice of where they work so they need to be protected. So they fought to have all smoking pushed outside.

It is here that the private business owners began to feel an infringement upon their rights. The local government is now telling them that they can’t allow the use of a legal product in their privately owned, adult only business.

Smoking then went outside. And business owners reluctantly complied, setting up smoking areas for their patrons, outside and at their own expense.

Then, a few years later, these same advocates were tired of having to walk through the smoke to get into non-smoking establishments so they decided to go after smoking outside. Now, not only are private business owners lacking in their rights, but smokers were also being told that as a smoker, somehow their rights are not equal to those who are non-smokers.

Now, for the non-smoking advocate who may be reading this, please don’t get upset. We definitely see your side of this. Why should someone who has no desire to be engulfed in cigarette smoke have to put up with cigarette smoke? Why should parents have to run quickly through clouds of smoke with their children in order to get past the front doors of one establishment? And for those who have quit smoking and struggle every day to stay on the wagon, why would one want to be subjected to such temptation? Recovering alcoholics are lucky because if they don’t want to go into a bar, they simply don’t have to.

But what would have happened if the anti-smoking advocates had done the exact opposite? What would have happened if their original smoking bans were to restrict all smoking on public streets and only to allow smoking in private businesses that had proper ventilation systems and were physically marked on the entrance that this is a “smoking establishment”? Would we be having the heated debates today that we are? As for the workers in such an establishment; in America they have the right to choose where they work.

One of the arguments busting this “it’s for public health” stance is the electronic cigarette. The electronic cigarette does not use combustion so therefor, does not produce second hand smoke. It produces a vapor which is similar to fog machines that even Disney parades pump into the faces of children, infants and unsuspecting adults, in mass quantities, day after day. All current testing of propylene glycol vapors, which the majority of electronic cigarette vapor is comprised of, actually suggests that these vapors are harmless. Testing done by Dr. Murray Laugensen from Health New Zealand on the e-cigarette found, “Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO.” So why on Earth would these be included in smoking bans?

There is no evidence to date that the second hand vapor of the electronic cigarette can even be compared to the second hand smoke of a tobacco cigarette. Studies have been done since the 1940’s on propylene glycol vapors and even the EPA suggests that propylene glycol is inert with no carcinogen levels upon inhalation, hence it’s use in hospital air sanitizing systems.

The electronic cigarette is being including in smoking bans because the anti-smoking groups have decided that this isn’t about second hand smoke anymore. It is clear from the lack of research as presented on many of their websites, that they haven’t done any scientific research into the electronic cigarette and many do not even appear to have an understanding for the difference between combustion and vaporization. On one site, which we will leave as nameless for now, they state that cigarettes contain 4000 ingredients. No. Tobacco cigarettes do not contain 4000 ingredients. Tobacco cigarettes that are UNLIT contain 599 ingredients according to the CDC and the SMOKE from a tobacco cigarette contains 4000+ ingredients. There is a BIG difference between a lit cigarette and one that is sitting on a table, unlit.

There is also a big difference between vaporization and combustion. Did you know that if you burn incense in your home every day for 20 years, you are being subjected to many of the carcinogens and by products of a burning cigarette? It’s because COMBUSTION produces these harmful by-products which include some of the worst ingredients including carbon monoxide, arsenic, formaldehyde, and so on. VAPORIZATION from the electronic cigarette is not capable of making these types of by-products due to the low rate at which they heat… not burn.

The only reason to include the electronic cigarette in local smoking ordinances is because those against the electronic cigarettes usage in public are against nicotine or against the action of smoking. Both the use of nicotine AND the action of smoking are LEGAL. It’s the by-products of combustion created by a burning tobacco cigarette that should be cause for concern in regards to public health, not the action of smoking nor the intake of nicotine.

For those who are against the use of nicotine and wish to see nicotine prohibition, well, then stop forcing unsuspecting smokers to use the patch, the gum, and the nicotine inhaler and state your position for what it is; a complete banning of the substance.

For those against the action of “smoking”, be careful. Attempting to ban an action is a slippery slope.

And for those who are in this for public health, consider reversing the bans so that smoking occurs in places where adult activities take place. All places should be required to have proper ventilation and the technology is there. All workers should be required to acknowledge they understand they are working in a smoking environment. All establishments should clearly mark on their entrance that smoking is allowed. This reduces the amount of cigarette butts on the street, reduces non-smokers from having interaction with cigarette smoke, and the private business owners are able to continue offering the type of establishment the free market dictates. THIS is a win win smoking ban for all.