Many people wonder about who actually invented the electronic cigarette. Most don’t know, while others would claim it is Hon Lik from China. But in 1963, Herbert A. Gilbert filed his patent on a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette. Two years later his patent was accepted. The whole patent issue becomes somewhat complicated when you consider new technology and different designs, but what is clear is that 46 years ago Herbert submitted the idea of a smokeless cigarette to the United States Patent Office. Here is an excerpt:

“The present invention relates to a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette and has for an object to provide a safe and harmless means for and method of smoking by replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air; or by inhaling warm medication into the lungs in case of a respiratory ailment under direction of a physician.”

Herbert….I’m telling the FDA you said that.

View the PDF of Herbert’s Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette

Does this look familiar?

Herbert A. Gilbert even got a plug the December 1965 issue of Popular Mechanics for his new smokeless non-tobacco cigarette invention:

46 years later we now have the INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette

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.

What does Ron Paul have to do with the electronic cigarette you ask? Well, if you are an avid reader of our blog, you probably came across Right To Choose E-Smoking and Right To Vape. These posts demonstrate the issue at the heart of the debate over electronic cigarettes; the freedom for smokers to choose an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. Let’s be honest with ourselves, if the real issue was about health then tobacco cigarettes, which kill about 400,000 Americans per year, would be banned.

Smokers who are also American’s, or those living in America, have certain rights. These rights should include the ability to choose electronic cigarettes rather than tobacco cigarettes. That’s it…plain and simple. You may not like smoking or smokers, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights.

Ron Paul has been an advocate for limited government, personal freedoms, civil liberties and individual rights since the 1970’s. We at Instead believe that Ron Paul is a perfect allie to help ensure the government or some government agency doesn’t isolate the tobacco market (or the pharmaceutical market) so big companies can enjoy limited competition. We also believe this is a matter of smoker’s rights to choose an alternative to a known killer, which we think Ron Paul will agree with.

UPDATE: We came across this article: Moving Towards Tobacco Prohibition written by Ron Paul. It is a great read for those interested in being free.

Due to extraordinary demand, orders that include American Made E-Liquid, including the Instead Kits with American Made E-Liquid, in High Tobacco or Medium Tobacco strength/flavor combinations will be delayed by approximately 1 week. These orders will be shipped on or around October 19th.

Orders that include American Made E-Liquid in Low Tobacco, Zero Tobacco, High Menthol, Medium Menthol, Low Menthol, or Zero Menthol will ship in our usual 1 business day time frame. Most orders placed before 2:00 pm EST go out the same day.

Orders that include our Imported E-Liquid (including our Electronic Cigarette Kits with Imported E-Liquid) will also ship on schedule, although our current availability of flavors and strengths is limited. We will have our Imported E-Liquid stock replenished in the coming weeks.

We apologize for any inconvenience this causes our customers and we continue to work to ensure a steady supply of electronic cigarettes and e-liquid in this ever changing marketplace.

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.

We have two competing products: The tobacco cigarette and the electronic cigarette. Both can deliver nicotine and facilitate the habit of smoking. But there are differences. The electronic cigarette is a reusable product. Cartridges can be filled over and over again. Batteries and atomizers last many uses. Obviously this is not the case with tobacco cigarettes. Let’s have a look at the difference in garbage produced between using 300 tobacco cigarettes and using 1 bottle of E-Liquid (approx. equivalent to 300 tobacco cigarettes by puff count):

Please note the e-cigarette cartridges are made of #2 plastic, which is generally recyclable. The glass bottle from e-smoking and the cardboard boxes from the tobacco cigarettes are also recyclable. This image shows the amount of garbage with no recycling, although we encourage everyone to recycle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOSTON, July 27 — The FDA recently went public with misleading information about the safety of electronic cigarettes and the marketing of the devices, not only using its clout but recruiting other prominent organizations to demonize a product that has great public health benefit potential.

A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville, challenge the FDA to provide the full quantitative data of the study upon which the FDA has based its warning against electronic cigarettes. They are concerned that the FDA’s disingenuous targeting of electronic cigarettes through a biased presentation of the scientific data has had significant negative impact upon the public perception of electronic cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these have shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious health issues among traditional tobacco smokers.

In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence of carcinogens and “toxic chemicals” in a “small sample” of electronic cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out nitrosamines as particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform the public is that detectable amounts of carcinogens are also present in nicotine replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette gum, both approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can be also found in food items such bacon and beer. This double standard and alarmist attitude has had the significant and unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria among the public, discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product which is thought to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional tobacco.

Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been made public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute for Global Health, and the American Lung Association in their attack on electronic cigarettes. These researchers argue that it is absurd to consider taking electronic cigarettes off the market when it is the conventional ones which have been shown to be killing people. Further, the electronic cigarette community calls for accurate and fair reporting relative to the findings and statements of prominent medical professionals in favor of this new and important technology and challenges the media to tell the other side of the story.

“The FDA’s laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes,” says Dr. Michael Siegel. “The traces of carcinogens present are also present in nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups have fallen into a huge analytical trap as they have failed to ask the appropriate question. The question they are asking is: ‘Are electronic cigarettes safe?’ That is not the right question. The right question is: ‘Are electronic cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?’”

Dr. Rodu states, “The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes.”

Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, “The newly adopted FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to currently marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law encourages cigarette companies to produce new “reduced exposure” cigarettes to be marketed as reduced exposure products, with no scientific evidence that such reductions in exposure will reduce risk of future tobacco related illness and death. In the context of these provisions of the newly adopted FDA/Tobacco bill — FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the manufacture and sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with manufacturers to assure the highest possible quality control.”

###

For more information and interviews, contact:

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Department of Community Health Sciences
Boston University School of Public Health
617-638-5167
Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu

Joel L. Nitzkin, MD, MPH, DPA
Chair AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force
Phone: 504 899 7893 or 800 598 2561
Fax: 504 899 7557
jln-md@mindspring.com
www.aaphp.org

Brad Rodu
Professor of Medicine
Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research
University of Louisville
Phone: 502-561-7273
Email: brad.rodu@louisville.edu
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com

There are many things about e-smoking that are similar to traditional smoking but let’s not forget that it still isn’t actually smoking. Some argue that it is still smoking because the action of smoking is still present and although this is a valid argument, there is still no combustion, just vaporization. Thus, the term “vaping” has been introduced by many e-smokers.

Let’s first look at the similarities.

As mentioned above, electronic cigarettes allow the user to inhale and exhale a smoke like substance. This is important and why many smokers find the electronic cigarette to be a suitable alternative to tobacco. You can see the vapor go in and see it come out. You can even blow “vapor rings”.

Many electronic cigarettes look like traditional tobacco cigarettes. This is not true of all models, but of most. This adds to the smoking sensation and helps many smokers feel more comfortable with the product.

Electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine…..well most do. While it is true that you can easily use an e-cigarette with no nicotine at all, most are sold with nicotine. By the way, here is a pdf of research done on nicotine by M.A. Bozarth,* C.M. Pudiak, & R. KuoLee. Addiction Research Unit, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo. As a side note, although nicotine is addictive, it has never shown to be cancer causing.

Now the differences.

Electronic cigarettes use vaporization, not combustion. Burning causes a chemical reaction that can produce many known cancer causing agents including tar.

The e-cigarette can be used over and over again. The cartridges are refillable using e-liquid and the battery is rechargeable. This is quite the opposite of a tobacco cigarette which is used up then tossed.

Tobacco cigarettes contain tobacco….obviously. This is not the case with electronic cigarettes. The liquid that is vaporized contains a base of propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, water, nicotine (optional), and flavoring. Further testing of the vapor is underway to determine other compounds in the liquid and in the vapor.

It is common knowledge that smoking tobacco cigarettes causes cancer and may eventually lead to death. To date and to our knowledge, no cases of e-smoking related cancer have been reported. To date there are zero cases of e-smoking related deaths. Although there are limited studies (right now), if you would like some users opinions, visit the electronic cigarette petition.

Contrary to what many health organizations advocate, smokers do have rights…..they just don’t have the right to harm others. They do have the right to choose an alternative to a product that is sanctioned by the government and known to kill. We encourage any legal age smoker who is thinking to trying an electronic cigarette to do their research, compare the products, and make an informed decision for themselves.

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.