90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The Rise Of E-Cigarettes

E-cigarettes are suddenly all over. Nicotine in a tube. Are they safe?

This photo taken on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, shows Blair Roberts, a 22-year-old sales associate at Colorado E-Smokes as he demonstrates the use of a electronic cigarette and the smoke like vapor that comes from it at an E-Smokes store in Aurora, Colo. (AP)

This photo taken on Wednesday, March 2, 2011, shows Blair Roberts, a 22-year-old sales associate at Colorado E-Smokes as he demonstrates the use of a electronic cigarette and the smoke like vapor that comes from it at an E-Smokes store in Aurora, Colo. (AP)

America fought for years to get out of the clutches of cigarettes and the ravages of tobacco.  Many Americans still fight to break free.  Now there’s a new player.  E-cigarettes.  All the nicotine of a cigarette, but none of the tar and gunk that lead to cancer – as far as we know.

You may have seen people puffing them.  Vapor in, vapor out.  No actual smoke.  But there’s a big debate over the net impact.  Are e-cigarettes a nifty way off of traditional smoking?  Or are they a new gateway to nicotine addiction and, ultimately, back to cigarettes?

This hour, On Point:  the e-cigarette dilemma.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Christie Aschwanden, health columnist for the Washington Post. (@cragcrest)

Dr. Michael Siegel, medical doctor and professor of community health science at Boston University’s School of Public Health. (@mbsiegel)

Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research at the University of California San Francisco. (@profglantz)

Closing Segment on Insurance Exchanges

Julie Appleby, reporter for Kaiser Health News. (@julie_appleby)

Teresa Ghilarducci, labor economist and nationally-recognized expert in retirement security. Economics professor at The New School. (@tghilarducci)

From Tom’s Reading List

The New York Times (Dr. Michael Siegel): What’s Not to Like? — “Available scientific research confirms that electronic cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation and reduction strategy for many smokers. There is abundant clinical and survey evidence, and recently – clinical trial evidence – that literally hundreds of thousands of U.S. smokers have successfully quit or cut down substantially on the amount they smoke thanks to electronic cigarettes.

The Washington Post: E-cigarettes raise new questions about smoking – “Though e-cigarette makers do not make safety or health claims, many users assume that eliminating the smoke of burning tobacco also eliminates the harm. ‘There’s no question that e-cigarettes deliver fewer [toxic substances] than conventional cigarettes, but the question of how much less is still not clear,’ says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California at San Francisco. ”

USA Today: E-cigarette use doubles among U.S. teens – “Last year, 10% of high school students say they tried e-cigarettes, up from 4.7% in 2011, according to the National Youth Tobacco Survey released Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A doubling also occurred among U.S. middle school students saying they’ve experimented with e-cigarettes — from 1.4% to 2.7% — and similar spikes in teen usage were found in the 2013 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Shag_Wevera

    Geez. Just quit or use a nicotine patch.

    • JobExperience

      Telly Savalas switched to Tootsie Pops.
      A big pacifier might work too.
      It doesn’t leave ashes or butts, or ignite couches.

      • TFRX

        Tootsie Pops or just lollipops? That was a bit before my time.

      • Todrick

        eCigs don’t leave ashes or butts, or ignite couches, either.

    • M S

      For most, easier said than done.

      • JobExperience

        True. Nicotine is addictive,, but add to this the proven fact that cigarettes are self-medication for a variety of suffering and exploitation. It’s easier to lessen smoking if socio-economic conditions improve. There’s also the hierarchical-sadistic personality traits often resulting from brain changes due to smoking. That’s why combat soldiers were encouraged (given courage) to smoke in bygone days. Smokers are easier to exploit.

        • J__o__h__n

          Or people who are easier to exploit smoke.

          • JobExperience

            I dunno

        • M S

          Or having to deal with some people make others want to breathe smoke.

        • ladyraj

          Wow! So many misconceptions so little space to address them. I’ll deal with the strangest (and completely wrong) statement regarding soldiers. Some soldiers smoked because the life-threatening circumstances triggered adrenaline and the simple act changed focus to abate the physical reaction. Hypervigilance can not be maintained forever. The battlefield lacked the time and wherewithal to offer anything but a quick fix. The pairing of sadistic personality traits triggered by smoking (laughable) with soldiers is offensive. It surprises me this fact is lost on you.

          Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder. Using soldiers to make a point about smoking and purposeful elicitation of sadistic personality traits is a great example of exploitation.

    • Todrick

      nice idea… too bad nicotine patches have a 95% failure rate for helping smokers quit.

      See, the patch, the gum,. the pills… they don’t work… or worse… take away your will to live(literally, Chantix is scary).

      I tried them all… never could stay of cigarettes for more than 1 week.

      I’m now coming up on 2 years without a cigarette due to eCigs… I ended my 21 year slavery to tobacco overnight.

      Soon I will have cut my nicotine to 0, at which point i’ll likely continue Vaping… on occasion. It’s an enjoyable hobby.

  • Ben C.

    E cigs are far more effective than the patch in regard to long term studies looking at recidivism, and the patch doesn’t aid with the behavioral dependency, Shag.

    • JobExperience

      The steep cost gradient would be a powerful deterrent.
      Are you citing tobacco company research?

      • Todrick

        The only panelist suggesting a gateway effect is a well know anti tobacco and nicotine zealot.

        He will never accept any tobacco alternative.
        To Mr Glantz, it’s literally “quit or die”…

        He’d rather people die than reduce their risk of harm.

      • Matt Zukowski

        “Are you citing tobacco company research?”

        What tobacco company research. Lorillard has only a token interest, and RJR just got into the “scene”.

        “Seems like panelists are saying E-cigs are gateway devices.”

        Only one, and this has not been observed. E-cigarettes follow the pipe business model, we we don’t see teens with corn cobs pipes, except a token sub 5% who “have tried it”.

        What Glantz is suggesting is a teen who is so worried about his health will try e-cigarettes over regular cigarettes, and opt for nicotine. This doesn’t follow. An investment in e-cigarettes is pretty high, $10 for disposable, $40-$80 for a basic starter kit and access to the world of flavors. Glantz proposes this teen, who opted for nicotine, will then ditch this $40-$80 investment for his/her $1/day habit of fun flavors in favor of burning tobacco leaves at $8/day.

  • http://idpclinic.ru/ IDPClinic

    Another drugs dont change the situation!

  • MarkVII88

    Perhaps they’re a better alternative for people already addicted to cigarettes which have all the tar and other carcinogens that, presumably, e-cigs don’t have. I wonder if Medicaid would cover them as a stop-smoking aid because, after all, smoking is more prevalent among lower-income people even though they still seem to have money to spend on the cigarettes anyway. Smoking is so stupid both from a health and personal economic perspective, not to mention the proven deleterious effects on children exposed to it during their development and early years…just plain dumb.

    • JobExperience

      Medicaid? It’s being cut in most states.
      Maybe Medicaid and Medicare will cover testosterone patches for Low-T too. In your dreams.

  • J__o__h__n

    I support anything that reduces second hand smoke.

    • JobExperience

      Try nicotine patches.
      They’re cheaper.

      • J__o__h__n

        As long as I don’t have to breathe it, I don’t care what they use. (Although watching people using smokeless tobacco is disgusting.)

        • JobExperience

          Just put the dope in a baby bottle and listen to the suction.

      • Todrick

        more expensive…and less effective.

    • JobExperience

      John: Anything, really. Prison? Execution?
      Gas masks?

    • Todrick

      Good to know we’ve found another eCig supporter… Welcome.

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    If we really want people to quit smoking, just jack up the taxes so that the price of a pack of cigarettes (e-cigs or regular cigs) is $20. Then use the money to fund smoking cessation programs and to cover smoking-related health costs rather than for non-related governmental programs.

    • MarkVII88

      I totally, 100% agree with you. The problem is that, just like I wrote below, these taxes will predominantly effect lower-income individuals to the greatest extent because that group has the highest proportion of smokers. Politically, this won’t be palatable to anyone with the legislative authority to make the change.

      • JobExperience

        Faulty reasoning when it is plain that the poor have little political influence, and no political power (except when mobilized by wealthy exploiters). It is the tobacco lobby that presents an obstacle, not the underclass.

        Nicotine is an entergetic substance that allows the exploited to endure pain and degradation. Maybe fast food corporations would have to increase wages if cigarette doping went away. Without this opiate subjugated employees might become restive. Oh,, they’re already restive. Maybe they could push for $16/hr instead of $12.

        But then engineered grease and industrial fructose are opiates too.Notice how fit and trim Mayor Blumberg is? Even with all that stress from gun nuts’ threats.

        • JobExperience

          I can see from the downers that nicotine hates me.

    • JobExperience

      That’s social engineering. Stop signs are social engineering too.

    • M S

      Yes, we should do the same with alcohol!

      • JobExperience

        What about pot?
        I can’t wait for E-pot, what a laugh!
        I think E-alcohol has been tried.

        • M S

          There already is!

          • JobExperience

            Give us a consumer’s review.

          • M S

            Haven’t tried it yet. How’s the E-crack?

          • JobExperience

            All Crack is E-Crack by configuration.
            Get back to us when you try it.

          • M S

            Not necessarily, how do you take it?

          • JobExperience

            We don’t have Crack in Stanley, just meth.
            Police find it easier to tax.

          • M S

            And by ‘tax’, you mean ‘steal’.

    • thequietkid10

      Yeah no, yet another central planner who wants Social Engineering. I’m willing to bet that E-Cigs will do more good (both in helping people quit and mitigating the health effects) then any government planned smoking cessation program, ever would.

      Besides, you and I both know, that cigarette taxes have nothing to do with smoke cessation and everything to do with filling Washington’s coffers at the expense of a group of people who are pariahs in our society.

      Furthermore, a tax that high would be defacto prohibition and we have seen all the joys that come drug with prohibition, both circ 1930s and today.

      • JobExperience

        You sound like an investor.
        Or is that Nick O’Teen talking?

        • thequietkid10

          I’m a libertarian, smoke a Hooka about three times. You sound like Communist, with your “opiate of the masses” style comment regarding fast food workers.

          • JobExperience

            You really can’t define either label.
            Libertarians in the USA are often fascists and/or uber-capitalists and/or racists and/or sexists and/or pot dealers. Calling yourself Libertarian is often a euphemism and a convenient mask.

            Those who think themselves Communists are often just pissed off at Corporate Capitalism.

            Sometimes I’m an old school Republican and sometimes I’m a Libertarian Socialist Anarchist. It depends on my mood. You have no idea how I sound, only how I write in short bursts. For a quiet kid you sure pipe up. How old were you when you began tobacco?

          • TFRX

            Calling yourself Libertarian is often a euphemism and a convenient mask.

            If ever there was a thread for the adage that “Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke pot…”

          • JobExperience

            Excellent distillation.

  • JobExperience

    A younger friend works in a Charlotte,, NC office building where the complaint department of an E-cig company is also located. Vending machines are in the common mailroom. She brought me 25 return envelopes containing these products and cartridges that were defective (expensive compared to cancer sticks) and returned by desperate poor customers. They received no response. The pleading, begging tone of these letters resembled pleas to Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Buyer beware? My friend has seen several one cubic yard hoppers of the same material being hauled to the dumpster. And remember, she spends only about 5 or ten minutes a day on break to get a cold drink. E-cigs,, I reason are a rip-off. So addicts would be well-advised to return to the real thing or quit if they value health.

  • JobExperience

    Really sad is the US position being taken on youth smoking in Asia and other areas. If law and regulation are good here then why not everywhere? Why are we promoting the export of addiction with tax credits and subsidies? Maybe we could send soap bubble kits instead. (OK, kids… smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.)

  • Sue

    My son switched to e-cigs almost 3 years ago. He has gradually reduced the nicotine content of the e-cigs and now uses the smallest dosage of nicotine (6 mg compared to 24 mg initially). He said eventually would like to stop altogether and it may be possible. At any rate, now there is no smoke anywhere in the house, garden, garage or even in his car. No smell of smoke anywhere. However, I am still not convinced that e-cigs are safe, but they must be safer than smoking traditional cigarrettes.

  • J__o__h__n

    More plastic crap v. cigarette butts littering everywhere. What a choice.

    • JobExperience

      True, and more human rubble too.

    • thequietkid10

      Have you ever gone out on a neighborhood cleanup? I for one welcome our new plastic overlords.

      • JobExperience

        How many smokeable discards did you gleen?
        Some with lipstick discarded by junior high girls who saw a parent. Some with jock spit.

      • TFRX

        And it’s even less pleasant trash to find on a beach.

    • Todrick

      what?

      You should really learn about the subject you are discussing…

      eCigs have no litter comparable to cigarette butts.

      • J__o__h__n

        Don’t they have some sort of cartridge?

        • Todrick

          some do… but they generally last all day… you refill or replace them at night. 1 per day.

          Then there are more advanced units like mine:

          http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/liberalswine/C360_2013-04-28-12-05-13-816_zps29f0194c.jpg

          The only trash it generates is 2 small pieces of cotton (about the size of 1/10th of a cotton ball) once every week or two…

          I throw them in the trash.

          I could even switch to a ceramic wick… then I could use it for months before replacing it… but it’s more expensive.

  • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    Nicotine is not the problem with cigarettes. No one talks about how caffeine is killing people, even though it is physically addictive. The problem with cigarettes is the inhalation of combustion materials and the impossibility of not subjecting other people to them in public places: e-cigarettes solve *both* problems, to which I say “Huzzah!” I wish more smokers would switch to e-cigs.

    • JobExperience

      Not entirely true. Consider your brain changes.

      • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

        If it doesn’t affect me, it isn’t any of my business. Alcohol affects brain chemistry to a much greater degree than nicotine, and yet we tolerate that. Why? Because alcohol doesn’t impose on non-users to the same degree. Alcohol and e-cigs are in roughly the same category from the externality standpoint.

        • JobExperience

          Brain changes with alcohol are primarily deterioration except for temporary elation.
          Changes from nicotine are permanent.

          • M S

            Tell that at an AA meeting, they will laugh you out of the room.

          • JobExperience

            Yep,, they’re a cheery bunch.

          • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

            [citation needed]

          • JobExperience

            Are you writing tickets?
            I think the onus is on you.

          • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

            I think it’s amusing that you have everything almost completely backward. To wit: (1) I am not the one who made the unsupported assertion that “Brain changes with alcohol are primarily deterioration except for temporary elation. Changes from nicotine are permanent.” That puts the onus on you: I’m not going to do your research for you. (2) I am also not the one in favor of any positive action by government to regulate something. I praise e-cigs for eliminating externalities, i.e., second-hand smoke that I don’t want to breathe. I am therefore live-and-let-live with companies that produce them. You OTOH are the one asserting something bad about them. Burden: yours. (3) In a sane world, the ticket writer has the burden of proof on them to prove that the recipient of the ticket violated some rule. In this case, you are the ticket writer.

          • Todrick

            This argument is used a lot by eCig opponents…

            “There is no proof they are safe”

            But anyone with a basic grasp of logic understands the problem there.

            Absence of proof of safety does not prove harm.

            Because you can’t prove a negative.

            The burden of proof is on eCig opponents to prove they are dangerous, they are cancerous, they are as bad or worse than traditional cigarettes.

            Short of that… We need to be promoting their use in an attempt to get people off cigarettes.

    • alex gambino

      Nicotine is still an issue, because it constricts blood vessels.

      Nicotine is, however, an adult choice that we can make. Those who like the feeling will continue to use the drug: nicotine.

      • JobExperience

        autoerotic asphyxiation is another adult choice

        • StilllHere

          After which, nothing is better than an e-cig.

      • Todrick

        again… If Nicotine is still an issue…
        Why isn’t caffeine an issue too?
        Why are you not campaigning for an end to Caffeine Addiction…

        Seems to me you are confusing nicotine use(addictive) with the smoking of tobacco(addictive and cancerous)…

        Would you push to ban drinking coffee, if people were getting cancer form smoking tea leaves?

  • alex gambino

    Interesting that there’s little regulation on how e-cigarettes are marketed. Tobacco products cannot advertise on television…

    Also wondering if airlines will allow or prohibit the use of e-cigarettes. Chewing tobacco is not allowed on planes (which baffles me).

    I am not a user of tobacco, just curious how WE will address these issues.

    Cheers

    • JobExperience

      Rules are on the way.

      Smokeheads will be crying like gun dealers,, in service to Big Tobacco.

      • M S

        I hope they are regulated, because the real vapers don’t buy the e-cigs or Blus from 7-Eleven.

      • JobExperience

        Downers are blowing smoke in my direction.

      • Todrick

        I stopped being a slave to Big Tobacco almost 2 years ago… The eLiquid and Mod(eCig) I use are not made by any BT company.

        Regulation will hand the entire ecig industry over to big tobacco…

        Talk about bad Public health policy

    • Todrick

      well… they contain no tobacco… so why would TV ads be regulated like tobacco products?

      They do contain nicotine… so like potatoes, eggplant, peppers, etc… they can be advertised on TV.

  • J__o__h__n

    Doesn’t Jennie McCarthy know that e-cigarettes cause autism?

    • JobExperience

      Spelled t-h-i-m-e-r-i-s-o-l.

  • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    …and for the record, no one I know who has switched to vaporizers for marijuana has ever gone back to the combustion approach. Once you make the switch and get the effect at greater intensity and without all the irritation and negative health consequences, why would you go back?

    • JobExperience

      Bo-o-o-o-ong! 11 o’clock, to late to go back to work.

  • Art Toegemann

    This must not subvert the rights of nonsmokers. It is still a matter of some people imposing their chemical behaviors on other people.

    • JobExperience

      I gave you an up Art because you get it.
      They also impose their health problems on the rest of us.
      I recently sat at deathbeds of lung cancer victims.
      The emotional cost is in the trillions.

      • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

        Wouldn’t it therefore be great if we could virtually eliminate lung cancer by eliminating exposure to the carcinogens from tobacco smoke?

    • Todrick

      So is Perfume…

      Your point?

      • Art Toegemann

        What next, comparing it to automobile exhaust (a common retort)? This is about the administration of a drug. Smoke, vapors, are volatile and an imposition. Take a pill, if you must.
        Perfume, cologne do not have the reputation of this unknown air borne nicotine.
        I saw you “safer” comment below. From WWI, cigarettes were thought to be harmless and even beneficial. That ended as late as 1965, the first year of the warnings.

        • Todrick

          Actually art… It’s not about the administration of a drug… courts have already ruled against the FDA: eCigs are not Drug Delivery Devices.

          The Pills you suggest take away your will to live… literally.

          Nicotine should have no reputation… it’s not harmful.

          you’re just confusing it with tobacco smoke.

          • Art Toegemann

            It’s sociological, not chemical; physics. Fewer odors make fewer demands. Many people will find this offensive and rightly so.

          • Todrick

            The negative reaction to ecigs is not about smell, not about health, it’s about looks…

            People find it offensive because they don’t like the way it looks…

            Kind of like Racists

            When the visual aspect is removed they don’t have an issue.

            Since December 2011, I have vaped in
            every movie theater I have been in…

            You see, there is a method we call “stealth vaping”… where no visible vapor is exhaled.

            Guess what?… No one has said a word.

            Compare that to smoking… someone lights up a cigarette within 20 feet of you, you know immediately, you don’t even have to see it.

          • Art Toegemann

            Your comment on pills will interest some.
            Check with management before you “vape” again in a movie theatre.
            I’m reading thrills from “stealth” and novelty. No sale.

  • TFRX

    “Take our freedom back” while using a nicotine delivery system.

    I had not heard that. Hilarious in a way.

    Edit: I’m well aware of the sham “Torches of Freedom” “spontaneous display” by the flappers in the 1920s.

    Plus ca change, nest ce pas?

    • JobExperience

      Or by bombing Sarin cannisters in Syria.
      Related ain’t it.
      The real terrorists escape in a cloud of covert smoke.

  • J__o__h__n

    I don’t see why existing smoking bans should have to allow indoor use of e-cigarettes. I don’t want to breathe the vapor either.

    • JobExperience

      Agreed. E-cigs are an evasion of sound law and health practice. They are kid bait, just like the wine coolers WalMart displays near the check stands.

      • M S

        The e-cigs aren’t the problem, it’s the marketers. In this country the disgusting tobacco companies run by Kessler market to kids. E-cigs have actually been around for a long time and developed in China then came here and they were not marketed to kids…they were created because tobacco was so expensive in Asia.

        • Todrick

          No, they were created because the inventor’s father died of cancer.

        • Matt Zukowski

          Tobacco is expensive in Asia? That makes no sense. Don’t we get the bulk of our nicotine for NRPs from China?

    • EKeller

      Because 1) Vapor isn’t smoke 2) Calling root beer an alcoholic beverage doesn’t add alcohol to it 3) Laws need to be enforced as written 4) Exaggerating the significance of insignificant quantities of chemicals that are also present in NRTs (in roughly equivalent amounts) doesn’t make vapor more hazardous than NRTs

      Vapor does not contain the elements (tar, CO, ash, chemicals of combustion) that cause smoking-related disease. There is probably a higher quantity of potentially harmful chemicals in the smoke from your Bar-B-Q or exiting the chimney of a house where the fireplace is being used–possibly even in the air of a restaurant where food is being fried or grilled.

  • markC

    When I quit smoking, a e-cigarette was ONE of the tools I used. After I broke myself away from the nicotine addiction and being a slave to habits, I gave my e-cig to a friend, hoping that it will aid him to quit.

  • markC

    The stigma is that you’re still a SLAVE!!!

  • Enigma_63

    Can we also discuss the difference between E-Cigs and Liquid Vaporizers?

  • markC

    “Don’t worry…you’re safe,” seems reminiscent of those cigarette commercials from the 50′s: X amount of doctors recommend…blah, blah, blah.

  • markC

    Btw: After 29 years of slavery, I’ve finally broke the chains!

  • J__o__h__n

    Safer and less dangerous mean the same thing.

    • JobExperience

      Obama and Romney mean the same thing too.

      • M S

        lulz

  • Ed

    I feel much better using the e cigarettes rather than smoking. The e cig breaks up the rituals that you have with regular cigs.

    I do not have the same cravings I had with regular cigs and some times go a day with out smoking.

    The big difference is that you can take a puff here and there and not have to smoke a whole cigarette at once.

  • JanaHod

    Haven’t we all learned what happens when people take advice from Jenny McCarthy? It’s about straight up fraudulent marketing.

    • JobExperience

      So go and get your shots,, no one’s stopping you.
      Get a shingles shot and protect your roof from hail.

      Immunizations are not always safe just because Jenny McCarthy is a silly publicity seeking has-been.

      • JanaHod

        I guess that sounded flip. I don’t think E-Cigs should be outlawed. It seems there is evidence to suggest they are safer than tobacco cigarettes and help with the other physical/behavioral elements of smoking addiction. But why sign up for addiction? Because you can?

        My argument is that it’s disingenuous to market them through the lens of reclaiming some lost individual freedom (as the Jenny McCarthy ad does).

        This is, at heart, the same claim made by anti-vaxers. The calculus by which an individual makes a conscious decision to assist the spread of preventable diseases, like shingles, measles, whooping cough, and…nicotine addiction. Because they can.

        Effective marketing gives permission to deny risk so they may enjoy these “freedoms” without having to consider the removal of those same decision-making freedoms to those with whom they share public space.

        • Todrick

          It’s not “signing up for addiction”…

          We’re already addicted… eCigs are the first product that provides a truly viable alternative… an end-game to tobacco addiction that allows:

          1. the removal of carcinogens from the equation.

          2. the ability to change the flavor to something that does not remind the now ex-smoker of tobacco

          3. the ability to gradually step down nicotine over time… at a rate the user is comfortable with, instead of pre-determined “steps” decided by Big Pharma(who have a vested interest in their product failing, so you have to use it again)

          • JanaHod

            By “signing up for addiction” I was thinking more about non-smokers, not necessarily ex-smokers.

          • Todrick

            There has yet to be any evidence of anyone becoming addicted to traditional cigarettes as a result of eCig use…

            I do know a few people who Vape now that never smoked… but they all use 0 nicotine liquids… They use vaping to satisfy their sweet tooth and lose weight… and it’s working.

  • Trudie

    I work for a large healthcare insurance company and we do not have health insurance benefits when we retire…took that away …the ACA is a nightmare…just watch the numbers of people having coverage is going to plumet..they can’t afford the cost…look at the cost of the plans on the exchanges..and the administrative nightmare…

    • JobExperience

      So, how about Universal coverage bypassing employers?
      Then they could boost wages and retirement.

      Trudie? Are you there? Or did you go out to take a smoke?

  • SallyMariaR

    My son in law is a cancer researcher. He says that the amount of nicotine in my EC is no more dangerous than a cup of coffee. Plus, I have eliminated the 96 or so carcinogens that exist in tobacco. I now vape half the amount of nicotine than I had when I was smoking, and until the E-cigg I had no desire to quit. The junk science spewed by your expert today is nonsense. I have read the studies, I did due diligence in finding an organic juice and reliable equipment. I have to say, if I went out like a rabid bear against people drinking a beer the same way they seem to come after people who are trying to be more considerate about what they are putting in the air – they would think I’m crazy. I DO worry about kids vaping, but they also buy cigarettes. I think there should be an age limit. I do think there should be some control over the Chinese ingredients that are used. But if someone will fight to death for the right to have a gun and a beer – how can they go after me for enjoying a vape that really can’t hurt anyone!

    • JobExperience

      Self-abuse hurts those who love you

      • SallyMariaR

        That is touching, but I can’t go out and remove the soda from a mothers grocery cart or stop someone from eating chemicals. I gave up smoking because my family was afraid for me. I went from two packs a day to less nicotine than there is in the lowest level nicotine gum. So please don’t judge…

  • gemli

    Dr. Siegel is being curiously positive about something the tobacco industry sees great value in promoting. Do you really need to have someone draw you a picture about the boon the “E-cigarette” is to an industry who wants to offer a gateway product to impressionable young people? Nicotine addition is no joke, and how we allow nicotine delivery devices to to be sold to kids is unconscionable. We allow cigarette companies to sell death to millions of people, and yet the E-cigarette is the best alternative we can think of. We let them addict people to cigarettes, and then we’re supposed to applaud the distribution of the addictive component that cigarettes contain. If that’s not enough of a reason to suspect this product, anything that make Jenny McCarthy feel good about herself cannot be a good thing.

    • JobExperience

      Siegel will find a special gift in his Christmas stocking.
      But maybe his grandkid will be a Nichead.

    • Todrick

      you realize that the tobacco industry is pushing FOR regulation of eCigs right?

      With government regulation they can run smaller competitors(that happen to make the more effective versions of ecigarettes BTW) out of business due to the time and cost invlove din jumping through regulatory hoops.

      Fighting for eCig regulation is fighting FOR Big tobacco.

    • Todrick

      go to any reputable ecig website… they are all 18+

      Here I’ll help you with a couple examples:

      http://www.blucigs.com/

      http://www.njoy.com/

    • EKeller

      Vansickel et al. explored the question of whether use of an e-cigarette would lead to physical and/or psychological
      dependence. No adverse events were observed. Although a sufficient level of nicotine can be delivered to alleviate withdrawal symptoms in smokers, the slower rate of nicotine delivery makes it appear that e-cigarettes have a lower potential for abuse than traditional tobacco cigarettes.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229871

      • 1Brett1

        All this study showed was that those who are already smokers can get sufficient amounts of nicotine delivered to their blood to prevent withdrawal from smoking using an electronic cigarette, not unlike patches or gum, etc.. Based on this link, there was nothing about lowering a potential for abuse of the product (whatever that is supposed to mean).

        All I could find on Andrea Vansickel pertained to whether electronic cigarettes are an effective nicotine delivery system; and, well, yes, they are effective at delivering nicotine to the bloodstream. So?

        Nicotine is addictive; it doesn’t matter how it is delivered to the blood. One could conceivably be injected with nicotine and bypass the lungs altogether. Hemoglobin, which carries oxygen to the brain through the bloodstream, is infinitely more attracted to nicotine. It will carry nicotine to one’s brain much more readily than it will deliver oxygen, if the two are introduced into the bloodstream. It’s one of the factors that makes ending smoking more difficult.

        Can you cite the Vansickel study that proves the claims you make?

        • EKeller

          Sure thing:

          Vansickel AR, Weaver MF, Eissenberg T. Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette. Addiction. 2012 Jan 9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229871

          • 1Brett1

            Um, the link in your first paragraph from Vansickel is the same one you provided in your initial comment that I already replied to!? (I was asking for another study not pertaining to electronic cigarettes as a delivery system but that pertains to them not being physically/psychologically addicting). The one you cite shows that electronic cigarettes are an effective delivery system, at least effective enough to prevent withdrawal symptoms in those who smoke traditional cigarettes; which, if it shows anything incidental to its primary purpose, it’s that IF levels of nicotine in traditional cigarettes exist in the bloodstream sufficient to cause addiction to nicotine, so do electronic cigarettes.

            As far as the link to Peter Killeen’s work…there are no citations/nothing to show his actual research/methodology, and his claim is just a hypothesis; it appears he provides no evidence to support his claim that nicotine is not addictive. His background is psychology, too. Where is his study? He mentions something about nicotine gum not being addictive…if this is how he has developed his “theories,” frankly it’s not very impressive.

          • EKeller

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3330136/ Link to full text.

            “The results of this study, in which reliable nicotine delivery was
            observed only after the fourth 10-puff bout are consistent with our
            previous work showing that two, 10-puff EC bouts did not produce a
            significant increase in plasma nicotine concentration [8, 27].
            Notably, both the magnitude of plasma nicotine concentration increase
            and its rapidity were less than that observed with a standard tobacco
            cigarette [27],
            suggesting that the current results may reflect more buccal than
            pulmonary delivery. A slower rate of nicotine delivery has important
            implications for abuse liability, as the rapidity with which a
            psychoactive drug (i.e. nicotine) is delivered to the brain is directly
            related to its potential for abuse and dependence [11, 28, 29].”

          • 1Brett1

            Yep, you keep linking to the same study, which is unimpressive and is oblivious to anything I’m saying, once again. “Broken record” is not a very impressive/effective way to provide information.

            For one thing: 20 subjects?! Really?! Second, the people were studied for, what was it, a couple of hours in an afternoon? Third, the “design” was kind of silly with choices for the subjects to pick one product and it’s cost over another…and that is supposed to reveal/prove something about whether or not electronic cigarettes are addictive?

            Its “conclusion” is saying that plasma nicotine levels are a little less with an electronic cigarette than a traditional cigarette, and those 20 subjects showed through their preference decisions that electronic cigarettes are therefore less likely to show physical/psychological addiction..

            Sorry, this “study” does more to make claims seem silly rather than prove anything. If the plasma nicotine levels are less, potentially showing that there is less abuse potential, then it is sort of an argument that a smoker will try these (as part of a cessation strategy) and will go right back to cigarettes because the person is not getting sufficient nicotine.

          • EKeller

            I guess you missed this part: “A slower rate of nicotine delivery has important implications for abuse liability, as the rapidity with which a psychoactive drug (i.e. nicotine) is delivered to the brain is directly related to its potential for abuse and dependence.”

            I keep coming back to this study, because it is the only one I have seen so far that addresses the question directly. However, many other articles have mentioned the fact that slower time to peak levels reduces abuse liability. I believe that this question was pretty much settled when NRTs were being tested.

            Nevertheless, researchers have been seeing people accept e-cigarettes as effective for relief from withdrawal, even with blood levels well below their peak levels from smoking.

  • OnPointComments

    My brother switched from 1-2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years to an e-cig, first with nicotine then with no nicotine, and hasn’t had a cigarette for over a year.

    When he vapes in a restaurant, only a few of those facing him, who can see the vapor, voice an objection; those who can’t see him don’t know that there’s an e-cig in the room. I wonder if those holier-than-thou people who object have the same objection from steam rising from a plate of hot food or cup of hot coffee. I bet they don’t take tepid showers to avoid the steam.

    • JobExperience

      When’s his funeral?
      Your bro could just inhale and blow around coffee steam.
      Much cheaper.

    • J__o__h__n

      Who knows what is in it? It isn’t water vapor.

      • JobExperience

        Not knowing is the cache’
        Like Russian roulette.

      • OnPointComments

        It’s propylene glycol. I bet I wouldn’t have to search too long in your house to find a food product that you are currently consuming that contains propylene glycol.

      • Todrick

        1. Propylene Glycol and/or Vegetable Glycerin
        2. Nicotine
        3. Flavoring

        We know exactly what is in it.

        1. FDA Approved carriers that are used in many foods, and also in asthma inhalers

        2. FDA approved Addictive stimulant that is comparable to Caffeine.

        3. FDA approved flavorings used in countless products consumed everyday.

        • 1Brett1

          So, you hold up the FDA as corrupt, and condemn their methods and conclusions, but cite them as a valid organizational body for approving ingredients in electronic cigarettes…that speaks volumes to how selective proponents are about what information and sources they are choosing to either champion or defend.

          • Todrick

            I cited them, because eCig-opponents are calling on them to do something about the “dangerous” products we are inhaling. The Products the FDA has already, individually approved the use of.

            I personally can’t trust an organization that continues to allow Chatix to be sold… Or attempts to ban eCigs outright(as they did in 2009) while continuing to allow the sale of the deadliest consumer product ever developed.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “So, you hold up the FDA as corrupt, and condemn their methods and conclusions,”

            Actually it’s a case of selective endorsement. An NRP needs to pass a 12 week clinical trial. 12 week programs are quite ineffective. Rather than mandate clinical trials, the FDA used research on smokeless tobacco and determined if smokeless tobacco was, in relative terms, safe, NRPs must be safe for habitual use.

            http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/Scienceresearch/UCM173250.pdf

            Here is the actual study the FDA funded, and in it it’s clear e-cigarettes tested had fewer TSNAs than the control sample. Yet on their website they make it a point to claim e-cigarettes contained TSNAs which may be a health risk, when none were detected in the vapor, and their control sample contained more and that’s considered to be safe.

            This is not a conspiracy theory. The FDA is being inconsistent in what they define as safe and potentially unsafe.

      • Todrick
  • Emily4HL

    Thanks, Tom! I consider myself a decently informed IBM employee (in my 20s) and I hadn’t heard about this.

    I feel comfortable with IBM as a person with some disability, I can talk freely about my genetic disorder, but now I’m suddenly a lot more concerned about saving even more for retirement.

    (Not speaking for IBM, just myself)

  • 1Brett1

    I am amazed that these can be advertised on TV and radio (and their ads are ridiculous, btw) yet all other tobacco products have been banned for almost 50 years; this seems a step backward to me. Some of the claims are completely unsubstantiated, too.

    I’m not convinced that the “vapor” coming from these things is safe. Another one of the advertising gimmicks pertain to being able to use these in areas where smoking is banned; I haven’t really seen this challenged and doubt this claim would be true in all circumstances. I have been around these, and while they aren’t nearly as obNOXIOUS as cigarette smoke, they do still mildly stink with an amorphously artificial odor.

    It’s great if people use these as a smoking cessation device, and if it helps them, more power to them; but, anyone quitting is fooling himself if he thinks an addicted smoker can simply cut down as a reasonable method of quitting. Quitting completely is the only method that works over time. Reducing one’s use for periods of time will not, ultimately, over time, help one end an addiction.

    • Todrick

      I have been smoke free for almost 2 years, thanks to eCigs.

      I am now slowly lowering my nicotine and am on target to be nicotine free by my next birthday(middle of next year).

      Will I stop Vaping at that point?

      Probably not… Its an enjoyable hobby. But I won’t be addicted to nicotine… or have any of the carcinogens of smoking… so why stop?

      Do I worry that regulation will limit my access to ecig devices that work well?
      (the ones sold by big tobacco, that look like cigarettes do not)

      Absolutely!

      In fact… If effective ecigs are banned before I end my nicotine addiction… I’ll likely be forced to go back to smoking.

      • 1Brett1

        I’m glad you find relief from traditional cigarette smoking, truly. As I said, if people use this as a smoking cessation programs, that’s great. Anything that reduces cigarette smoking is good.

        I must say, many of your statements reinforce my comment about addiction, and you sound a bit like a person in denial of a nicotine addiction. Why, for example, do you set some arbitrary date attached to nothing other than ostensibly it is way in the future so you don’t have to quit now? Isn’t 10 months (or so) from now, or your “next birthday,” just some arbitrary date you’ve plucked out of the air, having nothing of physical or psychological significance associated with any addiction? Also fear of ecigs being banned and responding to that by saying you’ll go back to traditional cigarettes is self-sabotage/self-defeating psychologically. Sounds like you aren’t ready to quit, and some arbitrary date 10 months from now won’t magically change that.

        • Todrick

          im not in denial.

          I’ve been horribly, hopelessly addicted to nicotine for decades.

          I tried to quit and failed, repeatedly… for years… until i found eCigs in December of 2011.

          As for setting a date… you need to make up your mind… All reputable Quit Smoking advice suggests setting a date.

          That said… I’m only truthfully tying to quit nicotine now, because the FDA is planning to force me back to smoking…

          If the FDA would just mind it’s own business instead of being Big Tobacco’s puppet, I’d just continue vaping with nicotine.

          I’m happy, studies show it’s not harmful to me or bysteanders… whats the problem?

        • Matt Zukowski

          “I must say, many of your statements reinforce my comment about addiction, and you sound a bit like a person in denial of a nicotine addiction.”

          I’m pretty sure no one is in denial about nicotine addiction. In cigarettes teen experiment to habitual use is 75%, with 50% of smokers actually quitting before death, with quitters requiring 7-11 cessation attempts to quit. Cigarette smoking is insanely harmful with roughly 1% of users dropping dead each year in the US.

          It’s no different than let’s say someone getting methadone for heroin addiction, and you could hear the same arguments some 30 years ago. The bottom line is while methadone isn’t harm free, it’s use mitigates a worse addiction. Nicotine’s safety profile is MUCH higher.

    • Todrick

      why are you amazed these can be advertised on TV?

      Nicotine gum, patches and lozenges are advertised on TV… These aren’t much different… they are a source of nicotine without carcinogens.

      • 1Brett1

        Well, while it’s true that those smoking cessation products you mention are advertised on TV and radio, they are also marketed as smoking cessation products only. The e-cig commercials are selling their product as something that’s sexy and hip to use.

        I wish e-cigs were marketed more as a smoking cessation device. None of the commercials I’ve seen or heard on TV and radio have mentioned smoking cessation as part of the e-cig ad campaigns. Nobody is selling nicotine patches as a sexy and hip alternative to smoking, etc., either.

        • Todrick

          Courts ruled that eCigs can’t be marketed as smoking cessation devices.

          Blame the court ruling against the FDA.

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t really care enough to do any “blaming.” I’m not on any crusade to champion the use of electronic cigarettes. My point was that the patches, gum, etc. are marketed as cessation devices, electronic cigarettes are not; they are marketed the way traditional cigarettes used to be.

          • Todrick

            That’s probably because they haven’t been proven to be harmful.

            and since nicotine itself is safe and as a result has been given no time limit for ongoing use( by the FDA)…

            there is no reason to restrict advertising…

            all restricting advertising would do is keep more people from quitting smoking.

          • Matt Zukowski

            ” they are marketed the way traditional cigarettes used to be”

            You mean like just about any other commercial consumable product? Technically speaking the marketing I’ve seen markets them as an alternative to smoking tobacco, which is the design and function.

            The FDA wouldn’t allow SNUS to be marketed in anyway that suggests it’s less harmful.

        • Matt Zukowski

          “I wish e-cigs were marketed more as a smoking cessation device.”

          The FDA doesn’t permit this.

  • ruKidding?

    Vaporizers, eCigs, and similar products, inconvenience non-smokers MUCH LESS Than ‘Real’ (stupid) Cigarettes… I applaud the ‘Progress’… Let us stop all needless emissions… I will stop driving my truck if 100 (ex)smoker’s donate half their savings to me (for my decreased productivity without a truck)… Win-Win-Win!!!

  • OnPointComments

    I saw a research paper that studied the amount of time that it takes someone to vacate a parking space when there is someone waiting for the space vs. when there is no one waiting. The research concluded that it took much longer to vacate the space when there was someone waiting, and speculated that the person in the parking space liked the power and control he had over the person waiting for the space.

    My guess is that this phenomenon is the reason for the objection of some people to e-cigs. They want to have power and control over others, even if there isn’t a health reason to object.

    • Gabor Nagy

      I always get out way faster is someone is waiting, but I have observed the opposite

  • FartBarker

    All you electronic cigarette users are fooling yourselves. You are nothing but a junkie.

    I don’t need electronic cigarettes and you shouldn’t either.

    I propose a total ban on tobacco, beer, wine, liquor, sugar, coffee, tea, and fast food. They are all bad for you. I don’t enjoy or need any of these and nobody else should either.

    • Todrick

      LOL…

      Love that last line… It sums up the absurdity of the entire argument.

    • Sy2502

      Ja mein Führer

      • FartBarker

        Gesundheit!

    • Bob Chill

      Regardless of what you put on your list to propose, you clearly do not respect what our Founding Fathers believed in. Personal liberty and freedom is the core of our Country’s beliefs. Well at least it was. Our freedom of choice is under constant attack and is eroding quickly. Thanks to people who think like you do.

      • FartBarker

        I’m afraid that one flew right over your head.

        • Bob Chill

          LOL- yes it did. Unfortunately people who think that way are prolific nowadays. just apply my response to THEM.

    • fun bobby

      mr. Bloomberg is that you?

  • chris

    Former smoker of 23 years min 1/2 pack a day, husband also a former smoker of 24 yrs pack and a half a day. I started on e-cigs to quit the stinkies, husband started because it was dr. recommended as he was borderline on starting to have real issues with his lungs, previous to that he did not want to quit. Been over a year for both of us. Will never use an e-cig produced by big tobbacco… people seen to forget big tobacco chemically engineered the stinkies to make the nicotine more addictive. Had tons of withdrawals symtoms that many sites lay blame on nicotine for, while still using nicotine in my e-cig.. go figure. Hubby coughing at night almost non-existant now. For heavy cardio workouts my body now quits before my lungs, when smoking it was the other way around.

    Tired of Antz that ignore science and thank god we have people like Michael Siegel and many others that fight the good fight and not the greedy one.

    Regulate age and quality, but FDA is looking to ban effective products introduced to the market since 2009. Effectively what they look like they are seeking will only protect big tobacco and big pharma and not the mom and pa shops that actually give a dam….. follow the money people. Your brain is a muscle give it some exercise and read the research.

    • Todrick

      actually… the deeming regulation would outlaw product designs newer than 2007.

      Otherwise… nice post!

      “Congrats” to you and your husband.

      • chris

        Thanks for the correction Todrick :)

        Also wanted to post this info for people that might not understand where the Antz thinking/fears originate from on what the old tobacco industry has done.

        Although its old news its still relevant http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-03-01/news/1998060046_1_nicotine-effects-control-nicotine-tobacco

        A movie about it that also touches on this subject is called ‘The Insider’ with Russel Crowe and Al Pacino.

        What the Antz don’t seem to realize is the e-cig is different and the small businesses and informed users do not want it to change in a way that gives the upper hand to the influence of greedy corporations(ie big tobacco and big pharma). That until recently were not on the band wagon and had no hand in helping to build up this industry.

        And for those that think Pharma is free from corruption please reference this current news link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/china-launch-fresh-pharmaceutical-bribery-probe-xinhua-085925271.html?.tsrc=yahoo

  • Todrick

    that’s just a silly argument… You know full well that a smoker lights a cigarette and smokes it… usually 10-15 drags.

    An ecig user however can and often does, take 1 – drags… and continues on about their business.

    BTW…

    As Vapers (not smokers)… we did “Get The Smoke Out”…

    but thanks for the suggestion.

  • Todrick

    Yes, This is correct.

    In private businesses it’s up to the business owner to determine if they are allowed.

  • Todrick

    No need to avoid them like you would avoid smoke:

    http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

    Maybe just avoid them like you would steam from coffee.

  • Todrick

    They are orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking…

    As this study shows:

    http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

    They are safe for users and pose no health risk to bystanders.

  • Sy2502

    I find the question whether e-cigs are safe rather moronic. Real cigarettes are very bad for the health and people smoke them anyway. Do people really think a smoker cares if the e-cig is healthy or not? Come on people! They are better than regular cigarettes for sure, both for the smoker and the people around them.

    • Todrick

      beyond just “safer”… studies have shown that they are safe for the user and pose no risk to bystanders

      http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

      • sickofthechit

        Don’t you believe it!

      • 1Brett1

        When you say “studies,” don’t you mean one study from Drexel University? Just on this forum, all links provided to lead one to “studies” are this same ACSH website (which references a link to that one Drexel University study).

        • chris

          should you need to reference more here is a handy link for you http://casaa.org/Clinical_Research.html read up and at least and come to an informed decision

          • 1Brett1

            I did look at many of the studies in your link (not all). Most have to do with how well electronic cigarettes work as a nicotine delivery system (as assisting someone with withdrawal and depression associated with ending smoking). I don’t think anyone is questioning how well they deliver nicotine to the bloodstream.

          • chris

            They are a less effective deliver format then a traditional cig. But one thing that unfortunately most studies don’t address is the habit part and normal daily routine triggers, which is a large reason pharma products are not as successfully in comparison to ecigs. It is harder to find this info I have only seen it a couple of times myself mentioned in studies and kicking myself at the moment for not bookmarking them.

          • 1Brett1

            Well, nicotine is addictive and gets delivered to your bloodstream however, whether electronic or traditional cigarette; it could be injected, for the sake of discussion. Hemoglobin, which carries blood to the brain and to other parts of the body is exceedingly attracted to nicotine, much more so than it is oxygen even. It will deliver nicotine to your brain instead of oxygen if it detects nicotine. The electronic cigarette does nothing to get around that problem, as far as addiction, and as far as preventing good oxygenation in the blood.

            So, blame corruption by big pharma, the tobacco industry, media, etc., for unfortunate propaganda all you want, but the effect of nicotine in one’s bloodstream is a basic medical fact.

          • Spazmelda

            I addressed this in a comment above, but I think you are confused about what binds to hemoglobin in the blood of smokers. It’s carbon monoxide, not nicotine. As far as I know, nicotine has no affinity for hemoglobin. Electronic cigarettes do not produce carbon monoxide, while traditional cigarettes subject the user to high levels. This line of argument is based on a biological misunderstanding on your part.

        • SallyMariaR

          No. There are dozens of studies. One in particular was done by Moffit Cancer Center, part of the University in Tampa Florida. Some have been done in Germany, Italy, and not all studies have been published to the public

          • 1Brett1

            How do you know what Todrick meant? Can you provide any links to these studies? How are you privy to studies not published to the public?

    • Jon Krueger

      You’ve identified the highest risk of e-cigs: undermining quitting smoking. That exposes the user to all the toxins in cigarettes.

      • Todrick

        except… they don’t expose users to all the toxins in cigarettes…
        http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

        Look… They can’t undermine quitting…
        Traditional NRT methods have a 95% failure rate… pretty hard to undermine something that doesn’t work anyway.

        • 1Brett1

          There’s nothing that is scientifically settled about electronic cigarettes. I’d be a lot more comfortable with proponents acknowledging such than the cheerleading (and concurrent dismissal of anything indicating potential problems/incomplete study) going on here.

          What is your opinion of this:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/study-finds-e-cigarettes-_n_1187166.html

          As a smoking cessation tool, if the best one can say is that electronic cigarettes have no worse failure rates than other tools, then it it’s not much of an advocacy strategy.

          • chris

            linking to media sources and asking for thoughts is not the best plan, seeing most media want headlines that sell which usually equals fear mongering.

            Also quite a few of the studies that go in the negative direction on ecigs are by people with conflicts of interest disclosed or undisclosed to not tobacco companies but pharma companies. Companies that that carry products that compete with the ecig as a way to quit.

            If you want to at least start getting some real facts and heading in the right direction Michael Siegel’s blog is a good place to start. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/

            Also this study that has been posted is by an author with no conflicts of interest. Not funded by Pharma or tobacco companies. But a large base of everyday people and ecig users and supporters of smoke free alternatives that volunteer their time with CASAA ( http://casaa.org/ ) and donated to have unbiased research done.
            http://acsh.org/2013/08/new-study-finds-no-health-concerns-in-e-cig-vapor/

          • 1Brett1

            There was a study cited in my “media” link. You’ve just dismissed information out of hand, ostensibly because it comes to a potentially different conclusion than you want. Can you prove the study mentioned in the Huffpo article was performed by an organization with a conflict of interest? You simply avoided reading the article and avoided commenting specifically on what it said (that is much more closed-minded than I am trying to be). It was amusing that you would offer as an alternative to those tainted “media sources” (simply because they are media sources) a link to a blog. Also the ACSH link is the same one offered by all of you proponents on here, and that cites one study from Drexel University. The ACSH is known to be industry friendly, and it often reaches conclusions without rigorous and extensive scientific support.

            All I am saying is that the science is not settled. To suggest that it is, is incorrect. Also, there have been no longitudinal studies on electronic cigarettes.

          • chris

            The blog link was a quick reference of one of the guests on the show, Michael Siegel.

            If you read the blog his posts rather then dismissing the post it can provide a lot of detailed information on conflicts of interest to studies that have been released. A much more useful link then a media one. This is not an attempt to be closed minded and look for answers I want. It is providing you an easy link to information I have already read.

          • 1Brett1

            I’m not looking for answers I want. I neither smoke traditional cigarettes nor electronic cigarettes, nor any nicotine delivery-oriented products. It just seems that proponents are being a bit myopic by being absolutely convinced of the virtues of electronic cigarettes. Did you read through the study mentioned in the Huffpo article? If you you look through some of my other comments there are other references to other studies. Are all of them to be dismissed out of hand simply because you believe those that come to a not so resounding approval of electronic cigarettes have a conflict of interest without proof?

          • EKeller

            I asked an asthma specialist who runs a smoking cessation clinic about the Varvadas study” He said that inhaling just about anything–even pure saline solution–will have a temporary effect on airway resistance. He says that Varvadas presented no evidence that would indicate any type of permanent lung damage. I ask you, if switching to an e-cigarette causes lung damage (or more specifically, more lung damage than smoking), how do you explain the fact that switchers are reporting improved breathing and reduced need for asthma medication? I’m not coughing up gunk every morning any more. You think my lungs would be better off if I switch back to smoking? I don’t!

            Are all of the studies you cite to be dismissed out of hand? Only those that appear to be junk science. If you want to make something look bad, there are ways of structuring a study to do so. The Varvadas study is a good example.

            Most of the scary-sounding results are coming out of a handful of places where Tobacco Controllers congregate. Their goal is to eradicate all forms of tobacco from the face of the earth, and they see e-cigarettes as an impediment to their ultimate goal–despite the fact that they contain no tobacco and despite the fact that the products are helping smokers switch away from tobacco. If you think this is just a paranoid delusion on my part, look up the slogan of the World Conference on Tobacco or Health.

            Don’t mistake what I am saying here for a claim that e-cigarettes are 100% safe, or that nicotine is harmless for everyone. E-cigarettes still need improvements to optimize their effectiveness as a low-risk substitute for smoking. Because of that ~1% residual risk, I would not recommend taking up e-cigarette use to anyone who is a non-smoker. Nicotine can be harmful to a developing fetus and there might be a minimal increase in CVD risk. If you are not pregnant and you are a smoker, the minimal risk with e-cigarettes is preferable to the ~99% higher risk with smoking.

            On the other hand, the Tobacco Controllers ignore the fact that nicotine enhances the ability to concentrate and remember, reduces symptoms of depression, and helps to prevent the development of dementia, colitis, and Parkinson’s, to name some of the beneficial effects.

          • Todrick

            I read it… they lost me at “healthy smokers”… I realized right there it was junk.

          • Todrick

            I really think the American Council on Science and Health summed that study up best when they called the it “amateur propaganda”

            ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom stated, “The moment I saw that they didn’t run the same experiment using actual cigarettes, I knew this was pure (and not even especially well done) junk — an agenda-based report clumsily masquerading as science.”

          • 1Brett1

            Sorry, but that seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black coming from the ACSH.

      • Todrick

        Stanton Glantz claims regarding quiting are based on a study that the very authors state can’t be used to determine effectiveness of eCigs.

        Basicly they asked people who called a “quit line” if they had tried, unsuccessfully, to quit used ecigs.

        That would be like claiming Weight Watchers doesn’t work because you asked people at Jenny Craig if they had tried and failed using weight watchers.

      • Sy2502

        And even if they don’t help quitting, so what? They don’t stink like cigarettes, they don’t annoy those around you, and can be smoked everywhere. Is it really such a surprise that smokers would want to used them, even if they had no intention to quit?

  • Todrick

    “Quit or Die”

    You and Stan Glantz would get along great.

  • Todrick

    mine uses

    Casing: 316 grade Stainless Steel (that’s surgical grade)

    Heating wire: Kanthal A1

    Wicking material: Sterile cotton

    no problem there.

    then again mine is not the typical “cig a like” that the Big Tobacco companies are pushing and the FDA wants to regulate as the only choice.

    • chris

      Not a ‘cig a like’ fan here either, that was the first quit attempt that lasted one month. Lasted less then 2 days for the hubby.

      My current setup is a is a tank/carto with a entry level variable voltage manual battery as the standard voltage did not cut it for me or my hubby, and the auto draw batteries died to fast. Looks nothing like a cig and prompts people to ask questions. As there is no mistaking it for a real cig. I have had it jokingly referred to as looking like an epipen or wand.

  • HonestDebate1

    All that is required to quit smoking is the will to quit.

    • FartBarker

      I agree with you, nicotine users are bad people… scum of the earth.

      • HonestDebate1

        I don’t agree with you, I like smokers. I no longer smoke but will provide an ashtray for guest in my home who choose to. I feel bad when I see folks outside huddling in the cold to get a smoke. I haven’t had a puff since ’88 but I could buy a pack of Camel non-filters and start right back up with no problem. My hand still reflexively reaches for my shirt pocket after a good dinner.

        • fun bobby

          you gotta love that Turkish blend

          • HonestDebate1

            It beats the heck out of Pall Malls. I used to like Shermans too.

            Back in the day, if I bummed a smoke I would break off the filter and stick the other end in my mouth. The guys in the band put some cigarette loads in one once and I did what I always did. They watched me smoke it down to the nub before the explosion went off on my lips. That was funny.

            Another time I was at an ELP concert smoking and got busted. That was about the time smoking was first becoming shunned. I had no idea I couldn’t smoke in the hall. When you get near the end of a non filter cigarette you smoke it like a joint. I thought they thought I was smoking pot. The cop said follow me which I dutifully did. On the way I discarded the 2 joints I had in my pocket. I got fined $54 for smoking a cigarette. On the way back to my seat, I found the joints still laying on the floor.

            Just some cigarettes stories, no point really.

          • fun bobby

            that’s a funny story although I don’t personally condone drug use.

    • Lori Cerny

      My grandfather died from lung cancer when he was in his 60s. My grandmother quit immediately and lived into her mid-80s.

      • HonestDebate1

        That was a good decision and her husband’s death undoubtedly gave her the will.

    • Todrick

      there are millions of smokers who’d disagree with you… and millions of ex-smokers as well.

      • HonestDebate1

        They’d be wrong.

  • Todrick

    your link is not really relevant.. it seems to assume nicotine dependence is synonymous with smoking.

    Look at the charts it shows… they speak of “1 puff”, “2 puffs”, not to mention what the text actually says.

    On further research… the site is ran by Joel Spitzer…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Spitzer

    a well known ANTZ (Anti-Tobacco & Nicotine Zealot) this is a person (like Stanton Glantz) who is well known for their belief that only 2 option exist when it comes to nicotine addiction: “Quit or Die”.

    They believe Smokers should Die before they use tobacco products that are less harmful…

    Mr. Spitzer actively promotes Cold Turkey and it’s 90-95% failure rate over reduced harm.

  • 1Brett1

    This organization is well known for views that often either don’t have the science to support their claims, distort the science to support their claims, or cite maybe one study and claim that is some form of comprehensive scientific support of their claims. They are also known as being “industry friendly.” The “study” mentioned in your link had no citations; it also only pertained to second-hand smoke…Look, I don’t care if you people want to e-smoke, but so far I haven’t seen any compelling study that is peer reviewed by professionals and where some semblance of a real scientific method was employed.

    If there is not some form of tobacco product involved in these, what is in it? Where does the nicotine come from? Are you saying there is no tobacco at all in these products?

    • Matt Zukowski

      “Where does the nicotine come from? ”

      Tobacco

      “Are you saying there is no tobacco product at all in these electronic cigarettes?”

      This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Being a product of tobacco doesn’t make it a tobacco product. Synthetic nicotine exists. It’s not economically viable at present, but this would not change the pharmacological properties.
      If we accepted your logic, NRPs would be tobacco products.

  • 1Brett1

    People are either being disingenuous or ignorant when they say if we are going to ban electronic cigarettes than we should ban potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, etc. While some vegetables contain trace amounts of nicotine, e.g., potatoes, tomatoes, and peppers, and are in the nightshade family, the same as tobacco, nicotine levels can range from something being toxic to something being safe for consumption. Electronic cigarettes (the ones that contain nicotine) have high levels of nicotine, similar to a traditional cigarette. Potatoes have nicotine levels that are barely measurable. Nicotine is addicting at those higher levels found in electronic cigarettes.

    • EKeller

      Since only smokers or former smokers who are using an e-cigarette will be exposed to this nicotine, what’s your problem? The nicotine is a requirement for smokers to make the switch. The substitute needs to be satisfying. Bystanders are not exposed because the nicotine is absorbed in the body of the person using the e-cigarette so there isn’t any in exhaled vapor.

      • 1Brett1

        I don’t have a problem with your reply as a stand alone comment, but I was addressing those who use the ridiculous argument that nightshade vegetables should be banned if electronic cigarettes are to be banned.

        • Matt Zukowski

          But it’s not a ridiculous argument. What is a ridiculous argument are ones in states like California who propose an OUTDOOR ban on e-cigarettes under the presumption that nicotine is a carcinogen and employees of bars cleaning tables might be at risk. This is the 3rd hand smoke claim. It can be said with objective certainty that one’s exposure to 2nd or 3rd hand nicotine is less than environmental exposure.

  • 1Brett1

    Some of these contain tobacco specific nitrosomines (TSNAs) and diethylene glycol, a known poison.

    • chris

      I believe Michael Siegel also addressed this FDA report from 2009 on his site. You know the guest that host had on his show ;)

      • 1Brett1

        I know he was on the show…your point?

        • chris

          Last time i respond to one of your post as this one summed up your stance and source of information. My point is read more.. learn more. Form an informed opinion. But food for thought ban a harm reduction approach and keep a known killer on the shelf? Please realize your uniformed posts support the worst outcome of the question.

          • 1Brett1

            So, I guess opinions that aren’t yours, based on your information/Michael Seigel’s are uninformed? Perhaps you could just tell me why some of these ingredients in some electronic cigarettes are actually not in them, based on your information, specifically, rather then just referring me to MIchael Seigel.

            You (and all proponents on here, frankly) have dismissed ALL information that isn’t absolutely pro electronic cigarettes. I find that suspect and closed-minded based on a kind of ideology and desire, rather than a sober assessment of them.

          • Todrick

            TSNAs appear in quantities on par with NRT… this is a by product of the nicotine being derived from a tobacco source. The levels are far below any hazardes level.

            DG was found in safely low levels, in 2 cartridges, made in china, in one study(in 2009) and has not been found in any cartridge, in any study, since.

            I’ve seen it suggested that the likely source was contaminated PG… but with PG used in so many products, it’s safe to assume that contaminated PG also made it’s way into many other products.

            Why blame eCigs?

          • 1Brett1

            Well, fair enough, if levels are too low to be concerned over. At least you are clear that these toxins are present in at least some electronic cigarettes.

            Also, you keep using the word “blame.” I’m not “blaming.” It’s just that proponents should be fair in their claims and in in their dismissal of information that isn’t completely enthusiastic (and I feel you have been much more reasonable and realistic in your approach in discussing this than other proponents on here, btw).

            This is just a product that has a different way to deliver nicotine to the bloodstream, and that way may mean smokers of traditional cigarettes may reduce their smoking if they use these products. These products appear to be safer than traditional nicotine delivery systems, although they haven’t been studied for very long. They don’t appear to any less effective as a smoking cessation tool than any other tool. However, these products may be harmful in some form, long-term, in and of themselves, and they may not be effective at all in terms of smoking cessation (without presenting them in some comparison to other methods).

            ..This is all I’m saying.

          • Todrick

            “At least you are clear that these toxins are present in at least some electronic cigarettes.”

            you misunderstand… DG, WAS detected in small quantities in a single test done 4 years ago using a couple contaminated cartridges from china… It has never been detected since…

            ECigs do not as a matter of practice contain DG

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Well, fair enough, if levels are too low to be concerned over.”

            http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/Scienceresearch/UCM173250.pdf

            The study is clear that fewer TSNAs were detected in the liquid than the control sample, a 10mg Nicotrol Cartridge. These TSNAs were not in the vapor.

            I would say the highest level detected is 8.18ng/16mg cartridge (HealthNZ), but I think this figure is now up to 12ng/XXmg (I think I read that somewhere). A 4mg nicotine patch contains 8ng/4mg.

            In terms of TSNAs they are on par with NRPs even looking at the worst data.

    • Matt Zukowski

      http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/Scienceresearch/UCM173250.pdf

      No, only one sample contained detectable levels of DEG. That was Smoking Everywhere 555. This was not at toxic levels. It was not detected in the vapor, nor was the vapor tested

      No other lab ever detected this.

      There are a number of hypothesises on this. The might have had old propylene glycol which met the old standards of being food grade, they might have had industrial grade propylene glycol. The FDA could have botched up the tests, and the FDA had since lost the samples so this finding was never verified.

      DEG is the last thing you’d want for a solution designed to boil at 50C. DEG is an antiboil compound.

      In any case one .5ml-1.5ml cartridge out of MILLIONS doesn’t equal a common ingredient.

  • 1Brett1

    What peer reviewed scientific research papers has Dr. Siegel published?

  • 1Brett1

    Nicotine is addictive, and it doesn’t matter what the delivery system is to get it into one’s bloodstream. How it is carried around in the bloodstream is an important element to its use and hazard, no matter whether it is smoked, chewed, sniffed, or “vaped” it is carried through the bloodstream in the same way. So while the lungs may not suffer quite as much from electronic cigarettes, nicotine itself is still something to be concerned about.

    • EKeller

      “The lack of increase in common cancers in lifelong ST users indicates that nicotine is not a general cancer promoter. Meta-analyses showing increased risk of MI and stroke in ST users are heavily weighted by CPS-I and CPS-II, which are older US studies with many methodologic problems. More recent Swedish studies and an NHANES study indicate minimal if any increased risk of CVD with ST.” Dr. Neal Benowitz, author of Nicotine Safety and Toxicity.

      • 1Brett1

        Yes, all good, but you’ve completely ignored the point to my comment: that nicotine is addictive. While electronic cigarettes may change the way nicotine is delivered and this may reduce some other problems, it doesn’t reduce the problem with nicotine itself.

        • Todrick

          Caffeine is also an addictive Stimulant…

          Are you pushing to Ban that?

          Better yet, if people got cancer from smoking tea leaves… would you not be able to tell the difference between smoking tea leaves and drinking coffee?

          • 1Brett1

            I never argued that I wish electronic cigarettes to be banned. I also am not interested in some sort of false-equivalency argument.

            Caffeine has shown some beneficial properties that nicotine has not, for one thing. Also hemoglobin will not find caffeine more desirable, so to speak, to send through the bloodstream as it does with nicotine. Hemoglobin will go for nicotine over oxygen (this isn’t true for caffeine and hemoglobin). So, it’s apples and orangutans.

            I didn’t say anything about cancer/cardiovascular disease or anything other than about nicotine’s addictive properties. So, if you want to argue about cancer, etc. do so in a stand alone comment and not as a reply to my talking about addiction; it’s changing the subject.

          • SallyMariaR

            The hard science shows your statement is not accurate. It stimulates the brain to help one focus, and it also stimulates the part of the brain that helps with pain relief.

          • 1Brett1

            What statement of mine was not accurate? Nicotine is a stimulant, yes, so is caffeine. Caffeine has some properties that nicotine does not, and vice versa. Comparing them as a pro-nicotine argument is not a good argument.

            I doubt your claim about pain cessation re: nicotine. Citation?

            Crack stimulates the brain, so does meth, and prompts focus; while nicotine isn’t dangerous like these, it isn’t something any mature healthy person who otherwise does not use nicotine products would use to focus/stimulate the brain.

          • Todrick

            why are you bringing up Crack and Meth anyway?

            Both of those are drugs that have serious and detrimental physical effects on the human body.

            They are not remotely comparable to Caffeine and Nicotine.

            But I suspect you know that and just wanted to get a viceral reaction and association from non-smokers

          • 1Brett1

            No, it was in response to the idea that increased energy and focus are plusses for nicotine (which is a weak argument in my opinion) and professional/researched opinion on caffeine seems to have a constant pendulum swing back and forth year after year. Which conclusion is the right one?…You omitted the fact that I said nicotine isn’t dangerous like these drugs…So, are you manipulating what I said just to discredit what I was saying?

            Have there been any data on nicotine use long-term? No, as far as I can tell. It is always intertwined with cigarettes, pipes, cigars, chewing tobacco…so we don’t really know the long-term effects of nicotine on the body, do we?

          • EKeller

            “Nicotine’s beneficial effects are probably especially potent in the transition from experimental to regular smoking. Nicotine can produce several diverse effects that is, it can reduce aggression, improve focus on cognitive tasks, increase vigilance, decrease weight gain, and improve mood [16]. These beneficial effects are probably especially appealing to teenagers. Consider the issues most teenagers are dealing with. Many are trying to control their aggression, to focus attention for long periods of time, to control their weight or to control their
            mood [6]. Typically, they have trouble mastering these skills. When
            adolescents experiment with cigarettes, they may find that nicotine can help with some of these problems, plus it is likely to be a more reliable solution than their own fledgling skills.” –psychiatrist Dr. John R. Hughes

            Now consider this; research shows us that smoking rates are much higher among those with diagnoses of attention deficits, mild cognitive impairment, depression, and anxiety. It is much more difficult for people with these problems to stop using nicotine because for them, the “withdrawal symptoms” are permanent. For these folks (and I am one of them) nicotine keeps symptoms of their disorder under control. Once you switch the delivery mechanism to a non-combusted source, nicotine is a much safer treatment than the prescription drugs for these. Look up side effects for any antidepressant, for Ritalin, for Valium, and for Aricept and then compare to the side effects for any product that contains pharmaceutical-grade nicotine.

          • Todrick

            “while nicotine isn’t dangerous like these, it isn’t something any mature healthy person who otherwise does not use nicotine products would use to focus/stimulate the brain.”

            Wanna Bet?
            http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/23915-nicotine-patch-for-focus-a-log/

            http://paleohacks.com/questions/144386/thoughts-on-nicotine-gum

          • Matt Zukowski

            “it isn’t something any mature healthy

            person who otherwise does not use nicotine products would use to focus/stimulate the brain.”

            Really? This was totally the hardest part of quitting cigarettes for me. Daily commute of over 2 hours. Morning latte and cigarettes.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1945044/

            Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but it’s interesting 67% of long hall truckers smoked.

            DOT has different data.

            http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/truck-driver-fatigue-management-survey-report.pdf

            28% smoking among drivers, 9% chewed tobacco. 25% reported using smoking or nicotine gum to deal with fatigue.

            Maybe truck drivers are not mature healthy people, or maybe you are mistaken in your assertion.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, sure, those who don’t use tobacco/nicotine products use them all the time when they are fatigued…got it.

            Gee, that DOT report and how drivers fought fatigue in some study, etc., yeah that sure shoots holes in what I was saying…Why the data you report in your reply? It only says people used nicotine while driving. Were those people who normally didn’t smoke or use nicotine (my comment pertained to that)? What part of my statement has anything to do with regular nicotine users?

            People don’t become addicted to nicotine because they need something to fight fatigue, generally. Your missing cigarettes during your commute doesn’t at all refute how in other ways non-smokers, non-tobacco chewers, and non-e-cig. users deal with mental fatigue.

            These justifications get farther and farther from some semblance of reasonable, the more you reply. In fact, most of the proponents on this forum display an almost religious fervor and crusader defense in championing their use of e-cigs. The rest of the world doesn’t really care that much.

            Maybe you could organize a march on Washington or something?

          • Matt Zukowski

            “yeah that sure shoots holes in what I was saying…”

            Pleased you concede the point.

            “People don’t become addicted to nicotine because they need something to fight fatigue”

            Really? People don’t get addicted to methamphetamines because they want to fight fatigue?

            “These justifications get farther and farther from some semblance of reasonable, ”

            Wait a second, you conceded the point that a truck driver can and does use nicotine to fight fatigue, thus you concede it’s reasonable.

            “Were those people who normally didn’t smoke or use nicotine (my comment pertained to that)?”

            You raise a valid point here, and honestly I don’t have that data handy, save one truck driver friend who experimented with smoking to stay alert.

          • 1Brett1

            If at the end you say I raised a valid point but then all others you claim are concessions…all of what I was saying was based on the one point: that people who don’t use tobacco/nicotine are not going to do so when fatigued. Someone who smokes does so sometimes to fight boredom, fatigue, stress, etc. Someone who doesn’t use nicotine products does not use them for any of those reasons because they don’t use them. Is that a hard concept to understand?

          • Matt Zukowski

            Because you did concede the point.

            You also provided no evidence that no one takes tobacco or cigarettes to address fatigue. While I concede I don’t have the data on truck driver and cigarette adoption, this would be you shifting the goal posts when you have the burden of proof.

            Thus either truck drivers are not normal, or your assertion has no merit.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, except, no, I didn’t concede the point…You want me to provide data on something that doesn’t happen? As I said, you sound more ridiculous the more you post. No, I made a statement and you are refuting it; the burden of proof is on you. All you’ve provided has been data on smokers who smoke while driving, which doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. Maybe you just don’t understand my point, as simple as it is? Look I don’t care if you smoke, don’t smoke, chew tobacco, or rub nicotine on your forehead. You and others on here must either really stay ratcheted up about e-cigs or are some sort of advocates for these products in some capacity.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “, I didn’t concede the point”

            Sure you did in the first two lines I quoted.

            “.You want me to provide data on something that doesn’t happen?”

            How do you know it doesn’t happen then? Sounds to me like you pulled the claim out the air.

            ” I made a statement and you are refuting it; the burden of proof is on you”

            No, you made the positive assertion this doesn’t happen. I provided a rational argument why you could be in error, and you’re going nah-uh.

            ” are some sort of advocates ”

            Of getting people who smoke off cigarettes.

          • 1Brett1

            You really aren’t making any sense, but prove that people who don’t use tobacco products or nicotine secretly use them when they are fatigued. Go ahead.

            “Yeah, that sure shoots holes in what I saw saying”? Is that what you are referring to as a concession? I was being sarcastic.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I was being sarcastic.”

            No you weren’t, since prior nicotine or tobacco use was not a prerequisite, as such, you conceded the point.

            “prove that people who don’t use tobacco products or nicotine secretly use”

            This is called shifting the burden of proof. You claim no one who is rational would use nicotine, which you have a legit profession with a legit application for for a stimulant which improves cognitive function. And you have data indicated the use of nicotine or smoking tobacco to stay alert. And more over you conceded the point.

          • 1Brett1

            Yep, sarcastic. Okay, then, since you won’t “prove that people who don’t use tobacco products or nicotine secretly use them when they are fatigued,” I guess I’m supposed to prove “people who don’t use tobacco products or nicotine are secretly NOT using them when they are fatigued.” I’ll get right on that [that was sarcasm just in case you decide to reply with, "glad you are taking up the challenge" or some such nonsense]…most people sound less idiotic the more they explain themselves; you don’t suffer that fate.

            Oh, wait, sorry you were talking non-nicotine users with a “legit profession using a legit application” secretly using nicotine to temporarily “increase cognitive function.” Oh, man, it’s all so clear now. I was wrong, I see what you are saying now (sarcasm)

          • Matt Zukowski

            This would be moving the goalposts. You already conceded the point, and you also conceded you lack evidence for your positive assertion. You now claim the answer is unknowable based under the presumption that truck drivers will lie.

            Your trying to claim a demographic which has a history for using methamphetamines would NEVER start smoking to stay awake.

            “Oh, man, it’s all so clear now. I was wrong, ”

            Glad you concede the point, next time don’t make assertions you don’t have evidence for.

          • 1Brett1

            Not moving any goal posts. The trucker thing is yours. These truckers were nicotine users who used nictotine while they drove. That’s no surprise. You have no proof they were non-nicotine users who used nicotine just to prevent fatigue. You are making assertions for which you have no proof.

            Your last paragraph did the same thing as before; you took a sarcastic remark of mine and pretended I conceded a point. Cute. Sophomoric, but cute. I even told you it was sarcastic. Because you think I’m wrong doesn’t mean I am conceding a point.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Not moving any goal posts”

            You’re being intellectually dishonest, a truck driver must now have NO prior experience with cigarettes or nicotine, and this would be moving the goal post.
            “You have no proof they were non-nicotine users who used nicotine just to prevent fatigue. You are making assertions for which you have no proof.”

            This is shifting the burden of proof. YOU have no evidence for your assertion that NO truck driver EVER started smoking AFTER becoming a truck driver. You further confound this by asserting that someone someone who started smoking as an adult would be secretive about it, which would seem odd if their smoking is not a secret.

            “Because you think I’m wrong doesn’t mean I am conceding a point.”

            You’re being dishonest. You presented information as fact WITHOUT evidence, and asserted this is somehow not only unknown but unknowable. You do concede the point that you have no evidence. I happen to think you’re wrong that truck drivers who admit they are smokers would keep when they started a secret. I also think you’re nuts asserting a truck driver who historically had issues with methamphetamines would never consider cigarettes despite cigarettes likely being safer.

            In future, provide evidence for your claims.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “”it isn’t something any mature healthy
            person who otherwise does not use nicotine products would use to focus/stimulate the brain”

            Just to double check, yes you’re moving the goalposts from “otherwise does not use” to “never had prior experience with”.

            You concede you have no evidence for this assertion that “no one uses nicotine” to focus/stimulate the brain, and there is evidence to the contrary.

            You assert this is unknowable as truck drivers who claim to smoke would keep when they started a secret.

          • 1Brett1

            Wow, you are pretty ratcheted up about this, aren’t you? If someone has “quit” smoking, chewing tobacco, etc. and “uses” a nicotine substance to prevent fatigue/get mental focus, that’s called RELAPSE! If someone never has used and starts using, that’s called starting a nicotine habit (which may turn into a problem; it may not). But, yeah, people who don’t use, generally, don’t turn to nicotine use.

          • Todrick

            Nicotine has been used in pilot studies to treat Parkinsons and several other diseases.

          • Spazmelda

            I’ve never heard that nicotine binds to hemoglobin. Are you perhaps thinking of carbon monoxide (which ecigs don’t produce, btw)? As far as I know nicotine binds to nicotinic receptors and caffeine binds to adenosine receptors.

            Your above argument seems to stem from the fact that nicotine is addictive. Caffeine is also addictive, but you say this is a false equivalency. So, one is bad simply because it is addictive (you specificially wanted to exclude any discussion of cardiovascular effects in your above post), but the other is not bad even though it is addictive because…

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Caffeine has shown some beneficial properties that nicotine has not,”

            Nicotine has been shown to have beneficial properties in terms of cognition. It’s indicated for Crones disease, and there is strong evidence it mitigates symptoms of Altimeters .

          • SallyMariaR

            and it really seems silly that so many are using ec’s to get off tobacco – at a time when states are authorizing the use of weed – and the smokers who have found an alternative are the ones being targeted

          • 1Brett1

            Another false comparison. What are saying, that electronic cigarette users should be left alone and the focus should be on pot smokers? It is a little bit of a persecution statement to say that electronic cigarette users are being “targeted.” Is you point purely a libertarian one? There seems to be some worry about electronic cigarettes getting banned. Have there been any bills/legislative overtures made to ban them?

          • Todrick

            the FDA attempted to ban them in 2009… they stopped shipments at the ports claiming they were unregulated drug delivery devices… the FDA were taken to court… They lost, badly.

            Since then they have announced their intention to propose deeming regulations to regulate eCigs as tobacco products under the Family Smoking prevention act. The Act bans all Tobacco products invented after 2007(which would ban the eCigs that actually work well), this would protect Big Tobacco and Big Pharma from the serious threat posed by eCigs

          • Spazmelda

            There have also been various local bans proposed and some enacted. I believe Duluth, MN is the most recent.

          • Spazmelda

            Yes, there have.

        • EKeller

          “Nicotine is addictive” is a slogan, not a proven fact that 100% of scientists agree on. See: http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/addiction/dependence.html

          But even if we do accept your pejorative label, why is “addictive” so darned important to you? I’m more concerned about avoiding cancer and strokes and halting the damage smoke was doing to my lungs. Experts on nicotine have indicated that, while smoking increases these risks, nicotine without the smoke does not. So, I’m not experiencing problems. Actually, I’ve gotten rid of several problems.

          • 1Brett1

            Good for you; glad for you, truly, genuinely…it is laughable, however, to suggest that nicotine is not addictive.

            I’m not concerned about the effects of nicotine at all as I have never used nicotine products of any kind, so if you’ve been a smoker and this helps you, great.

          • Matt Zukowski

            It’s called the “nicotine paradox”. While the addictive element in tobacco, it’s not nearly as addictive outside of tobacco.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “…it is laughable, however, to suggest that nicotine is not addictive.”

            It’s laughable that you never researched the issue. I’m not going to claim it’s not addictive, however there is some dispute on this point. The nicotine paradox, as in it’s the addictive element in cigarettes not observed to be as addictive outside of cigarettes, has been documented before. This explains why we can observe teen experimentation with nicotine gum but we don’t see habitual use.

            Belluzzi, J.D.; Wang, R.; and Leslie, F.M. Acetaldehyde enhances acquisition of nicotine self-administration in adolescent rats. Neuropsychopharmacol 30:705–712, 2005. http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v30/n4/full/1300586a.html

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, you already mentioned this “nicotine paradox” just below this comment…you’re repeating yourself. You people are like e-cig talk 24/7. Some people are prone to addiction and some are not. NOT getting addicted after trying a substance doesn’t mean the substance is NOT addictive.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “you already mentioned ”

            But this time I provided a citation.

            “NOT getting addicted after trying a substance doesn’t mean the substance is NOT addictive.”

            This would be a straw-man argument. No one here claimed it was not addictive at all, only there is some skepticism that it is.

            So you concede the point, that there is evidence that would lead a researcher to question the addictiveness‎ of nicotine.

          • 1Brett1

            No, but there are differences in people’s predisposition to addiction.

            But, you are devoting way too much energy trying to convert me. I think you guys have transferred your addiction from smoking to e-cigs (which is better, don’t get me wrong) and have an obsession with defending your addiction.

            Look, just go out and buy a pack of cigarettes right now, smoke two, throw the pack away, and nobody will be the wiser; you can always go back to the e-cigs. By tomorrow those two cigarettes won’t matter; you’ve got the fallback position with the e-cigs, so what’s the problem?

            All e-cigs do is prolong the inevitable: that you have to stop your nicotine addiction. They also keep the idea in your consciousness more prominently, which undermines getting off a drug.

            But, maybe I’m looking at this wrong; you’re like the heroin junkie (“once a junkie, always a junkie”) and it is best to just stay on a maintenance program. That’s sad, really.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “But, you are devoting way too much energy trying to convert me.”

            Just providing evidence that much of your assertions are wrong, cited from questionable tertiary sources, or just assumptions.

            “Look, just go out and buy a pack of cigarettes”

            Why? So I can get cancer and die?

            “But, maybe I’m looking at this wrong; you’re like the heroin junkie (“once a junkie, always a junkie”) and it is best to just stay on a maintenance program.”

            This is where you concede the point. 50% of smokers die smoking. Yet somehow heroin users are entitled to treatment where smokers are entitled to quit or die.

            “That’s sad, really.”

            Yes, not smoking cigarettes is sad.

          • 1Brett1

            Except that you are providing assertions as well, with some being supported with flimsy citations that aren’t all that compelling…but, hey, it’s been fun. I am really not enough interested in spending an afternoon researching counter arguments.

            I hope e-cigs stay accessible. I hope they can be advertised at some point as a smoking cessation tool, even if they are not any more effective than patches or gum. I wish they weren’t marketed on TV and radio as some sexy/hip thing to do but as a tool to quit smoking. (I know, the FDA has prevented that, blah, blah, blah…)

            I don’t know that they are 100% safe, nor does anyone else. I am less offended by them than a cigarette. They should be illegal to sell to kids…Other than that, I don’t really care about them.

            I believe nicotine is addictive, although probably in varying degrees, depending on amount ingested, delivery system, etc. just like any other substance/drug, etc.

            Other than that, have a good day!

          • 1Brett1

            Dr. Siegel uses the “pejorative” term all the time.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Dr. Siegel uses the “pejorative” term all the time.”

            Dr. Siegle may, but he was in tobacco control for a long time.

        • Debbie Guardino

          The reason that nicotine is addictive in tobacco cigarettes is the MAIO’s added to it. How else can you explain the fact that a vaper can reduce the nicotine content themselves whereas when a smoker tries to cut down the amount of cigarettes smoked they are setting them selves up for failure. I could never go more than a hour between cigarettes, I can, if need be, go 5-6 hours without vaping and don’t feel the same jitters or withdrawal symptoms http://www.statepress.com/archive/node/7194

          And, nicotine is being studied for use in Parkinsons and Alzheimers patients and has been shown to help with depression

          • 1Brett1

            What are MAIOs? You people have a lot of these acronyms and abbreviations.

            Yeah, lots of things are “studied.” When there nicotine uses for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Crohn’s (and about three or four more diseases mentioned by you folks) are actually in use, then you can boast something.

            I take it you were a smoker and now you have your e-cig religion?

          • Matt Zukowski

            Then you concede the point since nicotine is indicated for Crohn’s.

            http://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2008/237185/

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, no…I don’t think you know the meaning of the word “concede.” As much as you use it, you should know it’s definition. But, you are being disingenuous here. It is not a treatment, it is being experimented with in trials. That said, maybe if you gave yourself a nicotine enema you’d have a better argument for the use of nicotine recreationally than “vaping”

          • Matt Zukowski

            “you should know it’s definition”

            Sure, you stipulated until mainstream use of nicotine for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Crohn’s, we can cheer.

            We already have off label prescribing for Crohn’s, so as such you concede the point.

          • Spazmelda

            Debbie meant MAOI, monoamine oxidase inhibitor. I would have thought that as much as you (seem to think) you know about this subject that you would have been able to figure out a simple typo. I’m not sure what you mean by “you people have a lot of acronyms and abbreviations”. The people using the acronym in this case are every scientist who has ever studied MAOIs.

          • 1Brett1

            Not too much of a chip on your shoulder, aye? So, it appears you know what I think. Amazing that you also read minds. Thanks for clarifying, though, and that does make sense.

            When I commented that people on this forum have used a lot of acronyms and abbreviations, I was making an observation. If you look through these comments, there are a lot of shortened terms used. Being that scientists don’t use the abbreviation “MAIO’s,” your point is moot.

            You must be another nic-head trying to defend your desire to stay hopped up getting your kicks. Isn’t irritability a nicotine withdrawal symptom?

          • Spazmelda

            LOL. You are adorable.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s just the nicotine talking. The MAIOs in that stuff cause the giddiness.

          • Debbie Guardino

            would you rather I went back to smoking? and yeah I admit I made a typo..MAOI is what I meant to type…google it and the other recent studies done on ecigs. Unless of course your happy to believe everything the government tells you….

          • 1Brett1

            When did I say I would rather you go back to smoking? Geesh…And, what is that crack about the government? What do you know of what I believe/don’t believe/am happy/not happy about what the government “tells” me?

            Sorry, I sincerely didn’t know what you meant by “MAIO’s.” I was asking. All you would have had to do was clarify. I didn’t want to be presumptuous, as people have been bandying around a lot of acronyms and abbreviations on this forum; some I knew, some I did not; some were clear, some were not. Is that some kind of character flaw on my part?

            Why are ex-smokers so defensive? I guess I should rephrase that: why are you being so defensive?

            No, I didn’t know that tobacco companies were putting MAOIs in their products…that is interesting. Happy?

          • Debbie Guardino

            Maybe I’m so defensive due to the fact that for the last 2+ years I’ve had to defend my choice to not use Pharmaceutical products to not smoke, maybe it’s because people can’t get past the fact that I still use nicotine, maybe it’s because anytime anyone tries to educate people about electronic cigarettes we get the same old tired responses about nicotine,or maybe I’m just tired of being nice and have decided to “take the gloves off”.

    • SallyMariaR

      So is coffee. Please look up the hard science on the amount of nicotine we are all talking about….. and one of my main objections is how much this bothers everyone when most of us were attempting NOT to annoy other people.

      • 1Brett1

        See my reply to Todrick below re: caffeine. It should be easy for to show a quick comparison between the nicotine amounts in traditional cigarettes and electronic cigarettes; which, if you wished to make a statement, it would have been more effective than to simply say “look up the hard science.” I can’t believe that there is a significant difference, or they wouldn’t be a viable alternative.

        I don’t think anyone is annoyed at someone “vaping.” I think at issue are some of the claims, the dismissal of anything that isn’t completely enthusiastic, and the incomplete science/study of long-term use of these.

        • Todrick

          It’s not just the raw amount of nicotine… the absorption os said nicotine is so different due to the particle size difference between smoke and vapor.

          As a result, eCigs don’t give a big hit of nicotine… there isn;t the same nicotine spike in the bloodstream. The nic is absorbed slower.

          as an example: normally a cigarette smoker can go out, have a cigarette and then be fine for an hour or 2, before wanting another one…

          A vapor on the other hand, when not constrained by “smoking” sections and policies preventing use as they see fit, will take a puff or 2 from an ecig… and then stop… returning to the ecig for another couple puffs after 10-15 minutes.

          They may both contain nicotine… but that’s where all similarities between vaping and smoking stop.

          Which is why some of the studies done have been so laughably flawed… the researchers don’t acknowledge the fundamental differences between the activities… going so far as to use the same testing procedures (mechanically) on eCigs as have worked in the past on Cigarettes.

          • chris

            Another thing the studies don’t address and I have experienced this personally and seen it posted by many other users. The use of sweet flavours actually cut down my junk food intake and many others, in addition maintaining the hand to mouth habit without replacing it with food. There by limiting the huge weight gain most smokers experience when quitting by other means.

            I would love to see a study address this aspect even if it used a no nicotine in the e-cig to test and see what the result would be overall.

        • Matt Zukowski

          “and the incomplete science/study of long-term use of these”

          This is the long-term use fallacy. Take the HPV vaccine. We don’t know the long term effect of using this vaccine because it hasn’t been used by the general population in the long term. In fact, no pharmaceutical product is held to this standard. The ONLY way to know the long term effect on someone in the general population is to deploy it to the general population.

          • 1Brett1

            So this is now a “pharmaceutical product”? Okay.

          • Matt Zukowski

            You’re being intellectually dishonest. We don’t hold pharmaceutical products to the same standard so why should we hold the recreational product to a higher standard.

            And they were ruled no more a pharmaceutical product (“drug delivery device”) than cigarettes.

  • Art Toegemann

    See a mental health expert, nonprofit, to quit nicotine, including ecigs. A nicotine habit is bad for the heart.
    And the American Cancer and Lung Associations. No products, just service.

    • EKeller

      Attended the American Lung Association’s class “Freedom from Smoking,” had individual counseling, even got hypnotized! On Zyban/Wellbutrin for 20 years, plus 4-5 pieces of nicotine gum per day. Best I could do was to reduce CPD. I finally got rid of the last 10 CPD when I added use of an e-cigarette. Haven’t smoked in 4 years and 6 months.

      By the way, smoking is much harder on the CV system than nicotine from a non-smoked source. Research on US & European smokeless tobacco users conducted during the past two decades shows that if there is any increase at all in CV disease (over non-users), it is minimal. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM232147.pdf It was because of this safety profile that the FDA changed the labels on NRT products to allow indefinite use.

      • Art Toegemann

        From the (very) end of the summary of your abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03826.x/abstract
        “; and e-cigarettes may help reduce toxin exposure to non-smokers.”
        “may help reduce” is not enough for this non-smoker.
        By mental health expert(s) I meant a psychiatrist, psychologist, and a social worker, although the psychiatrist is sure to try to sell you something. If you put their reputations on the line, they will make you quit.
        I worked with the Rhode Island Lung Association for a while. We recommended sipping water instead of smoking.

        • EKeller

          That’s just the way scientists talk. They use words like “indicates” rather than “proves” and leave wiggle room with wording such as “may do X” rather than “does X”.

          Over the years I worked with 2 psychiatrists (where do you think I got the Rx for Wellbutrin) and a social worker.

          • Art Toegemann

            I smoked many years ago. I remember being clueless as to my behavior, repeating all the arguments here.
            Quitting is a learning curve. Expert and lay assistance, friends, are good support. Sounds like you’ve gone around the horn at least once. Try until successful.

          • Matt Zukowski

            We already quit smoking. For me about 3 years now, almost 2 since I even had a cigarette.

            You’d rather I quit doing something that mitigates smoking? Do you want me to get cancer and die?

          • Art Toegemann

            That’s the nicotine talking; stimulant.

          • Matt Zukowski

            No, that’s your amoral philosophy talking, quit or die. You’d rather someone die than continue using nicotine. Same deal with Rhode Island, they’d rather teen buy cigarettes than adults stop buying them.

          • Art Toegemann

            When habits endanger people, that’s how some people respond. It’s understandable, in Tacoma too.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Really. You’d need to provide solid evidence that

            1) Second hand smoke endangered anyone
            2) Second hand vapor endangered anyone.

            Given second hand nicotine was never an issue with cigarettes, save 1 meter distance exposure equal to 100g of egg plant, you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate ANY issue with e-cigarettes that don’t have side stream smoke.

            Given you have no objective evidence for your claim, you concede to pulling facts from your tookus.

          • Art Toegemann

            What this thread needs is your admission you’re shilling for ecigs, complete with pictures of product and you using product (standing in a Tardis) at facebook; your immoral philosophy.
            Your advertisements, your “philosophy” are no better than your oral (verbal) fixations.
            You and I do not “present evidence”. At best, we provide links to published research, available by search engine, which will have to suffice and does.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “What this thread needs is your admission you’re shilling for ecigs,”

            This is the poisoning the well fallacy. I actually support quitting smoking by any means possible. Unlike people like you who only support nicotine cessation, and discourage people from relapsing to ANY other product despite there being at least a 98% difference in harm, and 50% of smokers who die smoking. This encourages smokers to relapse to cigarettes. Quit or die trying, literally.

            “standing in a Tardis; I don’t remember the good Doctor Who doping or selling dope”

            You’re being dishonest again. What’s with you equivocating nicotine with tobacco, and tobacco with marijuana.

            Yes, the first doctor did smoke a pipe seen in episode 2. It was a bit of a plot point, wooden matches intriguing prehistoric man.

            Tom Baker also was seen smoking a pipe on screen.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “When habits endanger people, that’s how some people respond”

            Yet you’ve provided no evidence e-cigarettes put people at risk. You’ve provided no evidence second hand smoking puts anyone at risk. As such, this is hyperbole.

          • 1Brett1

            Provide your proof of those claims that RI would rather like to see teens buy cigarettes than adults stop buying them?

          • Matt Zukowski

            I already did. They VETOed a bill that would ban the sale to minors under the presumption it would put it into a lesser tax class than cigarettes. This means they depend on cigarette tax revenue. As such, they depend on youth cigarette uptake since smokers die at a rate of roughly 1% (slightly less) per year.

          • 1Brett1

            Are you saying it is legal to sell e-cigs to minors in RI?

          • Matt Zukowski

            Yes, they vetoed the bill proposing a minor ban, with double the fine of selling an e-cigarette to a minor than real cigarettes. This was the American Lung and Heart Association of RI, The American Cancer Society, and Ri Tobacco Network.

            Their master plan is keeping it legal for a year and taxing them like cigarettes rather than propose an amendment.

          • 1Brett1

            There you go. My question was whether it is illegal to sell e-cigs to minors. I don’t care about the bill. Sounds as though the answer to my question is NO not yes, if it is double the fine for selling to them. So, NO, minors can not legally buy e-cigs in RI.

          • Matt Zukowski

            You have a reading disorder.

            IT IS LEGAL TO SELL E-CIGARETTES TO MINORS IN RI. There is no fine. The legislation to fine anyone who sold to a minor was VETOED. This means it was NOT passed into law. This veto was pushed by the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, The American Cancer Society, and RI tobacco control network.

            The plan proposed by RI TCN is to keep it legal for a year, and tax e-cigarettes like cigarettes.

          • 1Brett1

            Sorry, I did misread your comment. I do CONCEDE that one point. ;-) The “with double the fine of selling an e-cigarette to a minor than real cigarettes.” was taken the wrong way. Sorry.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Double the fine the first time. I’d have to check the law as written as for future offenses.

            I have to admit I somewhat disagreed with e-cigarettes having the greater fine for first offenders, but this could easily be resolved in the next legislative session. It’s also Rhode Island, with higher cigarette taxes than neighboring states. This presents an enforcement issue with cigarette bootlegging.

          • EKeller

            Excuse me? You must be thinking of one of the drugs that impair memory, reasoning, and judgment. Here’s a brief summary of nicotine’s effects on cognition: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11230877

          • Art Toegemann

            I said “stimulant”, not necessarily to a virtue. Poor Matt wonders if we want him to get cancer and die. What next, we tried to kill him? More deranged response from an admitted dope addict.
            EKeller, your source is Duke University, of Durham, NC, home to the tobacco/nicotine industry.
            The abstract is about patches, not ecigs (while arguing nicotine helps you concentrate).
            Your link is to a study in a vast library that includes lots of links to my position too.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Poor Matt wonders if we want him to get cancer and die”

            It’s how you make money promoting a quit or die philosophy. And yes, the philosophy includes the idea you’d rather someone get cancer and die than risk a child seeing an adult pretend to smoke. It also includes the idea of rather seeing teens able to buy e-cigarettes than risk this product being untaxed.

            “More deranged response from an admitted dope addict”

            Wow, talk about character defamation. I make it a point to NOT use marijuana since it has a legit application as an antiemetic. Let me guess, you’d rather someone with cancer die from starvation than use marijuana.

            “The abstract is about patches”

            Which contain nicotine. D’oh.

          • 1Brett1

            This is also common among the ones who claim they’ve “quit”…the dates sound funny, so to speak, i.e., they’ve sort of quit; the ‘official date’ was such-and-such, but the unofficial date was sometime later..also, having a cigarette every now and then in between an e-cig isn’t actually being a smoker, now is it? (Such crap). One guy said he was gradually reducing his nicotine intake and was “on target” to quit altogether 10 months from now on his birthday. You’ve been there, done that, I’m sure; it’s called not really wanting to quit and setting some arbitrary plan that is far in the future so it doesn’t have to be dealt with now. These things these people are saying are classic addiction justifications.

          • EKeller

            Too late. I already stopped smoking 4 and a half years ago. Nicotine abstinence is not needed to achieve lasting smoking abstinence. In fact, here’s a thought to ponder: Nicotine abstinence is the single greatest cause of relapse.

          • Art Toegemann

            That isn’t cause, it’s logic.

          • 1Brett1

            But “nicotine is addictive” is just a slogan. At least that’s what they say. I find most of these people on here to be in some sort of denial and needing to justify their use of nicotine with a lot of bloated claims about nicotine and e-cigs. I am truly amazed at the amount of contradiction found among people in this “e-cig community” even within the same person from comment to comment. I am also amazed at the online profiles of the people and their responses on here; it’s as if it’s a job, or something, where their waking hours are spent online advocating for e-cigs. It has a religiosity, a fervor, a crusade aroma. Their arguments are already loaded up; they are already prepared to counter any argument they might encounter. I believe it is a form of denial. All of them have a nicotine addiction; and, while it might be whole lot better than the cigarettes they were addicted to, they just traded one addiction for the other. Nicotine is not a panacea; it isn’t a hobby; it isn’t a crusade for people’s rights being protected; it isn’t any of that; it isn’t a community; it’s just a bunch of either ex or closet smokers who have to bolster what they’re doing to justify their doing it.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Try until successful.”

            In other words, keep smoking each time you fail, you’ll either die or quit. If you can’t quit you deserve to die.

        • Matt Zukowski

          Except that sipping water isn’t risk free is it? There is a risk factor of dilutional hyponatremia. Now the risks are pretty small, but this accounts for more deaths than even nicotine overdoses among the sub 5y/o demographic.

          And the odds are only 50% a given smoker will quit, with odds of 1:11 a given attempt will actually work. Thus what you’re telling people is to keep smoking until you do it right.

        • Matt Zukowski

          “I worked with the Rhode Island Lung Association for a while. ”

          You mean the organization that suggested the VETO on the ban of sale of e-cigarettes to minors?

          • Art Toegemann

            Wow. I did not know that.
            Do you have a link?

          • Matt Zukowski

            Handy no. I’m away from my main PC. I did google up something.

            But RI Tobacco Control Network acted on the ACS, RI ALA, AHA recommendation. The claim was it was a big tobacco conspiracy, but on further inspection it seems only RJR wanted this type of legislation to pass, which makes sense if you’re big tobacco trying to keep cigarettes economically viable.

            I’ve seen been banned from their FB page for making people aware of their choice to throw kids under the bus.

            https://www.facebook.com/pages/RI-Tobacco-Control-Network/305697846128832?fref=ts

            http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130718-r.i.-gov-chafee-vetoes-bill-banning-use-of-e-cigarettes-by-minors.ece

          • 1Brett1

            That is being dishonest. Minors can’t buy e-cigs. The bill was about how the products are taxed (according to you e-cigs are taxed double the amount of regular cigs and the ban would have simply taxed them the same). You are purposely distorting that whole thing to bolster your position.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Minors can’t buy e-cigs.”

            Yes they can, they Vetoed a bill dedicated to banning the sale to minors. Sale is not banned.

            ” The bill was about how the products are taxed”

            No, the bill DIDN’T address e-cigarette tax.

            “according to you e-cigs are taxed double the amount of regular cigs”

            You must have a reading disorder. The fine for selling to a minor the first time would have been DOUBLE that of selling real cigarettes to a minor. But this was VETOED.

            “You are purposely distorting”

            No I’m not. They literally vetoed a ban on the sale to minors so they can tax them NEXT YEAR as much as cigarettes.

  • fun bobby

    it would be interesting to compare these units to vaporized organic tobacco or even smoked organic tobacco

    • Todrick

      Smoked Organic Tobacco is no better than smoked tobacco… It’s just a marketing ploy.

      Dry vaporization is not something I’m interested in… it doesn’t taste as good and there is risk of ignition.

      • fun bobby

        has there been any research done? I have heard lots of positive anecdotal reports about organic tobacco.
        apparently you are an E-cig aficionado I am glad you have found something you enjoy. that does not really answer my question. lots of people would be interested in an alternative to inhaling whatever “good e-liquid” is and would like to know more about vaporizing tobacco

        • chris
          • fun bobby

            It must be noted that the quality of much of the data that was available for these assessment was poor, and so much can be done to improve certainty in this risk assessment.

            “However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients), if it were an emission from industrial process, creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep health effects as low as reasonably achievable.”
            sounds sketchy to me. clearly less sketchy as far as we know now than regular ciggerettes.
            neither of those studies says anything about organic tobacco so don’t really address what was being discussed in this thread..

      • Matt Zukowski

        “Smoked Organic Tobacco is no better than smoked tobacco..”

        Got any evidence to validate this assertion. I don’t disbelieve you, however, there is early tobacco research that indicates high levels of heavy isotopes which were attributed to NOT above ground nuclear testing, but use of high phosphate fertilizers. I doubt it is, but if you have a citation I’d love to see it.

    • HonestDebate1

      When I first moved to the mountains a farmer I worked for took me to his Tobacco barn and let me roll one straight from the curing plants. I turned green and couldn’t leave the barn for an hour.

      • fun bobby

        two questions
        was it organic tobacco? most, even mountain grown, is grown with inorganic fertilizers and pesticides
        there are different types of tobacco for different applications. what type did you try?

        • HonestDebate1

          Nah, it was farmed by the regular techniques but I don’t really even know what organic means anymore. It was big burly tobacco,

          • fun bobby

            sounds like some wrapper leaf. were you in NC? there is a theory now that one of the big problems with cigarettes is all the petroleum based fertilizers and such put lead and polonium in the soil which is absorbed by the plants and then when smoked the radioactive isotopes of these metals form clumps in the lungs and that’s what causes the lung cancer. that makes sense since I am not aware of any other plants besides tobacco that are claimed to be carcinogenic.

  • ruKidding?

    “Safe” is subjective and arguable… I would have to enthusiastically agree that (digital) eCigs are “Safer” than (analog) tobacco cigarettes like juggling razor sharp Katanas (the Sword, not the motorcycle) is “Safer” than juggling Running Chainsaws with rough uneven (unpredictable) idles…
    “Safer”? Yes, relative to a Lesser-of-two-evils vantage point… Why choose such a vantage point if one is Not ‘There’? (To aid in mutual understanding, maybe?)
    I would imagine those who claim any cigarette-type, potentially addictive, detrimental health device as being “Safer” than another, would also claim they are “Saving” Money when They BUY such devices… as if, ‘They HAVE To’… Spending is Spending, while “Saving” is – NOT Spending! (Not Spending right Now! that is… Rather, ‘Saving’ is gathering for a future Spend, or Transfer, or Gift)…
    Do not get me wrong! I understand “Addictions” and justifications and marketing and ignorance and education and stupidity and all that!
    (Really?!? How can anyone ‘understand’ Ignorance OR Stupidity!?!)
    eCigs are a ‘Cane’ to tobacco’s ‘Crutches’ or ‘Walker’…
    Great You Are Making Progress!!! (Sincere)
    When (or IF) You ever Walk Unassisted, I will applaud (with little enthusiasm)…
    Run, I will occasionally join…
    Mountain Bike, Ski, Cross-Fit? NOW We are talking about MY Addictions!!!

    • Todrick

      funny… now that i’m a vaper and not a smoker, I’ve started excersizing again…

      It’s miraculous really… I can actually go Mtn Biking now and enjoy it… every ride doesn’t feel like a Bataan Death March.

      • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle

        Uphills on 3 speed, at 60 years of age after vaping 3.5 yrs. I love breathing and not wheezing! We who use nicotine or not and vape know we are healthier than we were and compared to smokers there is no comparison!

    • Matt Zukowski

      “Do not get me wrong! I understand “Addictions””

      Obviously not. 50% of smokers die smoking, where it takes a smoker 7-11 cessation attempts to quit, a process that takes years. The order of magnitude of difference between vaping and smoking is huge, as in you’re better off vaping for 30 years than smoking for 16 weeks. As such, equivocating the harm between the two is evil.

      Kids can get harmed in car accidents. We have seat belts and car seats to mitigate the risk. It’s statically likely that a roll over accident may trap a child in the car seat and seat belt, and the child not escape if the vehicle catches fire. However it’s more likely a typical accident would be harmful without a seat belt, and this less likely event is likely to kill a child on the spot.

      If we accepted your logic, no kids should have to ride in cars EVER if we accepted your argument the lesser of two evils is still evil.

  • Todrick
  • HonestDebate1

    I’d say E-cigs are better for you than doing yoga in a room with incense burning.

    • 1Brett1

      Oh, now, you’re just going for the cheap applause. It’s not difficult to guess that these nicotine heads on here probably resent people who do yoga, they’ve probably never seen the inside of a yoga studio, and they don’t know that people don’t generally do yoga while smoking themselves out with incense.

      Have you noticed the near religious fervor with which these people defend e-cigs? Sounds like a nicotine addiction to me…

      Hey, these guys are probably just happy to get up a flight of stairs without getting winded and having to stop a couple of times along the way.

      Sounding like an e-cig proponent has gotten you more “likes” than any of your posts ever, though. Start an e-cig commune; you could be an e-cig messiah!

      • Matt Zukowski

        “Oh, now, you’re just going for the cheap applause”

        Actually no. Pardon my use of google and my inability to find the actual primary source quickly.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825092345.htm

        While preliminary, it does suggest burning incense presents an objective risk to health that is greater than second hand vapor.

        “Hey, these guys are probably just happy to get up a flight of stairs without getting winded”

        Yes, smokers never ride bikes, swim, or do Zoomba. Oh wait, you have no evidence for your assertion, again.

        • 1Brett1

          Well, thanks for providing evidence for smoke of any kind being hazardous. I don’t know what we would have done with that quandary…dude, you seem to spend your entire waking hours studying about e-cigs, talking about e-cigs, puffing on e-cigs, defending e-cigs, etc….Just go buy a pack of cigarettes and chillax; you know you want to.

          At least you aren’t denying the fact that you’re just a nic-head…so, some progress. (I am just amazed that you can type with such jittery hands)

          • Matt Zukowski

            “thanks for providing evidence for smoke of any kind being hazardous.”

            Pleased you concede the point that the assertion was not necessarily exclusively to get cheap applause.

          • 1Brett1

            The cheap applause part was a joke…you really need to get out more. I doubt that HD1 was making a serious point, either.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Nope

            “Oh, now, you’re just going for the cheap applause.”

            You concede even if it got cheap applause there is a factual rational behind the assertion.

          • 1Brett1

            What that people use incense while they do yoga. I don’t; the people I know don’t. I have a friend who is a yoga instructor, and she doesn’t us incense in her studio. I know that is all anecdotal, but…do I think smoke of any kind is bad? Yes, I do. Is that a concession? No. I never claimed otherwise.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I’d say E-cigs are better for you than doing yoga in a room with incense burning.”

            This was the assertion, which you concede is correct.

          • 1Brett1

            Wow….

          • Matt Zukowski

            “you really need to get out more.”

            I was out last night. You didn’t seem to be. D’oh.

          • 1Brett1

            Um, yeah, I had a music gig and got home late, which is why I replied to you at 3 in the morning. Do you have a point?

          • Matt Zukowski

            You concede the point :P

          • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle

            All 2 million vapers are going to wrap and ship their dirty ashtrays to you!!! HAVE A NICE DAY!

          • Matt Zukowski

            I’ve not had a cigarette at home since March 2011 IIRC. My ash trays have since been washed thus I can’t accommodate this request.

          • 1Brett1

            You keep alluding to smoking beyond your “quitting” smoking. So, smoking away from home doesn’t count?

          • Matt Zukowski

            You’re being dishonest again.

            I didn’t quit smoking Feb 2011. I totally bought singles at first, which I smoked chiefly at home for about a month. I THEN bummed one for my reunion, a few from a friend who smoked, and had one Jan 2012.

            One cigarette doesn’t a smoker make, but that was my last cigarette, Jan 2012.

            See, I first quit buying cigarettes, and then I TOTALLY quit smoking them. I went from 1.5 packs/day to 1.5 packs in March 2011.
            This means my ashtrays would be unused by the end of march 2011, with the exception of one smoker who used one.

            This is generally how people quit smoking. First they stop buying them, then they stop smoking them. Simples.

          • 1Brett1

            You have an amazing economy with words when you go out of your way to say something mean. At least Matt isn’t threatening me.

            You’re just like all of the other people on here. Your profile shows you spend all of your time online talking about tobacco, e-cigs, nicotine, etc. Are you people some sort of commune? Shills? Obsessive- compulsives? Sub-species?

            Amazing

          • Matt Zukowski

            I just don’t have dirty ashtrays, though I could be wrong.

    • 1Brett1

      E-cigs also have a much more relaxing effect than listening to a piano player out of key/hitting sour notes/off rhythm.

      • HonestDebate1

        You must have heard me play somewhere.

        • 1Brett1

          Naw, I wasn’t referring to you. But you’ve yet to deny you huff burning incense while you play.

          As Matt says, you now concede to playing out of key/hitting sour notes/off rhythm. Maybe lay off the incense?

          • Matt Zukowski

            You’ve already conceded that would be a good idea.

          • 1Brett1

            You’ve already conceded that you’re conceited.

          • Matt Zukowski

            You’re being intellectually dishonest. When asked the tough questions I cite objective research, which would indicate I concede to not knowing everything. As such your assertion has no merit.

          • 1Brett1

            You’ve not proven your links provide information from objective research. Who knows if all of these “studies” are objective? Most don’t quite prove what you say they prove, either. Besides, one study for a given issue does not a proper conclusion make; therefore, you concede that your assertions are unsupported by your citations you’ve provided.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Because they are independently verified. You know like the HealthNZ clinical trial backs up the experiment in Italy, which is backed up by a recent study in the Lancet.
            The FDA clinical trial also backs up the HealthNZ assertion in terms of TSNAs e-cigarettes are on par with NRPs.

            As such, you concede to being intellectually dishonest, just like you’re being dishonest equating someone saying the addictive nature of nicotine is disputed with asserting nicotine is not addictive.

          • 1Brett1

            Just curious, but is this your hobby to devote your time to researching, analyzing, and cross-referencing information on e-cigs? It’s kind of a weird hobby, no?

          • Matt Zukowski

            I read at over 960 characters per second, and got the facts before I experimented. I also read my stereo manuals too.

          • Matt Zukowski

            I simply researched it before I made a purchase, and continue to do so. I read in excess of 960 characters per second. I also read my stereo manuals too.

          • 1Brett1

            Wow, you know how many characters a second you read? And it’s 960?! That’s impressive. You remember all of the research you did before you purchased your e-cigs? …Don’t tell me, you have a photographic memory too? Well, that IS impressive, Matt.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Phonographic, I hear words. It’s not totally eidetic. I know others who are better.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, I hear words too! ;-) I think you are referring to thinking in very detailed pictures when you hear words, almost as if you are actually experiencing a real visual scene that is being only described?

          • Matt Zukowski

            No, my brain is chiefly audio. I remember sounds and spoken words and subvocalize when I read. It’s why I’m limited to only 960cps.

          • 1Brett1

            Ever play a musical instrument? When you say “subvocalize’ do you mean sounding out words in your mind as you read?

  • Jasoturner

    Surprisingly interesting and nuanced discussion. Anything that decreases the amount of particulate and smoke getting into people’s lungs gets my vote as a major improvement.

  • caleb cliff

    As is true about literally anything that exists, there are two major directions in which you can go with the e-cig. It may be an intro for the inexperienced smoker who decides to try it because of the flavors, and it may be just the thing a serious smoker was looking for to get off of or reduce the amount of nicotine. The e-cig is neither good nor bad, it is what it is according to how the person uses it. You can’t invent “non-smoking.” It is simply the opposite of smoking. The e-cig will start some people smoking and stop others, but it is NOT either better or worse.

    • Todrick

      I see and agree with your general point… but…

      I have to disagree with the last statement:
      “but it is NOT either better or worse.”

      Because I can honestly say, if one of my children was to begin a nicotine addiction(I sincerely hope they don’t)…

      I’d rather it be to eCigs than Cigarettes.

      Because one is clearly better than the other

      Though, obviously, the ideal would be “neither”.

      • caleb cliff

        Thanks for the comment. I understand your viewpoint and do not disagree. I suppose what I meant was that it’s still nicotine and herein lies the grey area where the entire discussion thrives. If your child were to start either smoking regular cigarettes or e-cigs, they would both be worse than not having started at all. If your child had already started smoking cigarettes and then moved to smoking an e-cig, the e-cig would be better. So, it’s all a matter of the current status of a user (or non-user) and back to what I said originally, “it is what it is according to how the person uses it.” Anyway, thanks again for the comment. I’m curious what the conversation will be in 5 years from now.

        • Todrick

          You almost got what i was saying.

          Sure I want my kids to use neither… but if I HAVE to choose… I’d choose eCigs.

          I wouldn’t be happy about it… but at least they wouldn’t be smoking….

          Plus, at least the option exists with eCigs to use 0 nicotine… or to taper your nicotine down to 0 over time.

          I too am curious where we will be in 5 years… I fear that the FDA will allow Big Tobacco to regulate their competition out of business.

          • caleb cliff

            I do understand, yet I’m not sure people understand my original statement. Everything is a double edged sword and depending on one’s current status it will either help you fight for good or will help you fight for bad. To me, you’re pointing out that the e-cigs are a lesser evil, but they’re still evil and they’re not the opposite of smoking. That’s all I got. Sorry if I’m exacerbating the greater discussion.

          • Todrick

            There’s not even proof they are an evil.

            They may, one day be other to be…. But as of yet, that isn’t the case.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “To me, you’re pointing out that the e-cigs are a lesser evil, ”

            Seatbelts are a lesser evil to not driving with one. Seatbelts present an objective risk in the event of a roll over accident and a fire making it hard to escape when upside down. Wow, now I don’t smoke I can keep a box cutter in my ash tray.

            The whole field a medicine is based on the lesser of two evils. Medication, controlled doses of poison, over non intervention. Surgery over non intervention. Vaccination over non intervention.

            Vaccines present an objective risk in less than 1:1,000,000 injections. Measles for example is estimated to kill 1:1000 of the infected in industrialized nations, and deployed to 90% of the population, and roughly 90% effective there is an expected 99% drop in instances. We see this and more. So 1000x less likely to have a serious complication compared to DEATH, and another factor of 100 or more less likely to be exposed to the disease.

            The vaccine is the lesser of the two evils.

            The estimate on e-cigarettes vs regular cigarettes is roughly 100x, so not the huge win that the MMR vaccine is. But the proposition is saving lives, which serves the interest of public health. Simples.

        • Matt Zukowski

          ” I suppose what I meant was that it’s still nicotine ”

          What’s your point? Nicotine isn’t really the issue, but the dirty delivery system.

          Cigarettes account for roughly 400,000 lifes per year. Presuming a product that is 98% less harmful, and presuming a 5x increase in popularity, roughly 100% adoption, this body count would be 40,000.

          Given the CDC says there was in increase in the cessation rate for a decade, presuming the worst would be a net win for public health.

          Smoking is an absolute, the combustion of something and the inhalation of the byproducts. E-cigarettes produce no smoke, thus is not smoking, and are estimated at ~99% less harmful than cigarettes. A product only needs to be 80% less harmful for 100% adoption to be a net neutral for public health.

          • caleb cliff

            I’m not focused on a great debate. I stand by my original point, the e-cig will be good for some and bad for others. I agree that a cigarette is far worse way to take in nicotine than an e-cig. Yet taking in no nicotine still seems to be the best option. Therefore, depending on which end a person starts from, currently being a smoker and switching to e-cigs is better for them, versus, not smoking anything and being intrigued by the e-cig and starting an unnecessary habit. This comment was only meant to allude to the fact that everything has a beneficial use and detrimental use.

          • Matt Zukowski

            ” I stand by my original point, the e-cig will be good for some and bad for others”

            And I stand my original point. If every man, woman, and child, used e-cigarettes, and no one smoked cigarettes, the body count would be WELL under 40,000 per year, rather than 400,000 per year, which would be a net win.

            “Yet taking in no nicotine still seems to be the best option.”

            This would be the nirvana fallacy. The data is clear, 50% of smokers die smoking, cessation requires 7-11 attempts, each attempt relapsing to cigarettes. Even the FDA now allows NRPs to be deployed for habitual use, and NRPs beyond 12 week programs do increase the odds of success.

            Not smoking by any means possible is a net win.

          • EKeller

            Taking in no nicotine is probably best for most people, but not necessarily for all. I know an 18-year old who never smoked, and began using an e-cigarette to help her keep her ADHD symptoms under control. I asked her if she ever tried one of the medications that are usually prescribed, such as Ritalin. She said her mother didn’t believe in drug treatment for ADHD. Now it could be argued that using nicotine is treating it with a drug; but nicotine has a much better side effect profile than methylphenidate.

    • EKeller

      I predict that the percent of the population that starts out with e-cigarettes (purely because of the great flavors which are impossible to find elsewhere, such as Baskins-Robbins) and who become addicted to nicotine will match the percent of the population that started out with Nicorette (purely because of the great flavors like Cinnamon Surge and Fruit Chill) and who became addicted to nicotine.

  • kugelrohr

    Since starting to use nicotine vaporizers, I have completely eliminated my cigarette smoking, and over the course of three months stepped down the nicotine strength from 12 mg/mL to 6 mg/mL. I was previously a 10 cigarette-per-day smoker (for ~14 mg/day absorbed nicotine @ 1.4 mg/cigarette absorbed), and now absorb approximately 7.2 mg (2 mL of 6 mg/mL liquid @ ~60% nicotine absorption). I’m now ready to step down again to 3 mg/mL liquid.

    Experts and studies can say whatever they want with regard to the aggregate effectiveness of vaporizers. I know that it’s working 100% in my personal experience. I’ll continue to pay attention to the studies regarding the health effects of nicotine vaporizers (including the carrier liquids and flavorings added), but for me there’s no disputing their efficacy in helping me stop smoking cigarettes.

  • Bill Godshall

    In sharp contrast to the false and misleading fear mongering claims by prohibitionist and propagandist Stan Glantz, the
    rapidly growing mountain of scientific and empirical evidence consistently indicates that e-cigarettes:

    - are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes,
    - have never been known to addict any nonsmoker (or youth) to nicotine,
    - pose no risks to nonusers,
    - emit similar levels of constituents as FDA approved nicotine inhalers,
    - are consumed almost exclusively (i.e. 99%) by smokers and former smokers who quit by switching to e-cigs,
    - have helped several million smokers quit and/or sharply reduce cigarette consumption,
    - have replaced/reduced about 750 million packs of cigarettes in the US in the past five years,
    - are more effective than nicotine gums, lozenges and patches for smoking cessation and reducing cigarette consumption, and
    - pose fewer risks than FDA approved Chantix or Wellbutrin.

    Had Obama’s FDA successfully banned e-cigarettes in 2009, several million e-cigarette consumers would have smoked an additional 750 million packs of cigarettes, which would have threatened their lives and public health.

    Thankfully for public health, individual freedom, market competition and common sense, all thirteen federal judges who adjudicated litigation filed by two e-cigarette companies (whose products were seized by Customs agents at US ports) agreed that the FDA’s import ban on e-cigarettes was unlawful, and
    struck it down in 2010.

    In response, on April 25, 2011 the FDA stated its intent to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the Tobacco Control Act by imposing the “deeming” regulation and by imposing additional regulations on e-cigarettes (despite the agency’s repeated claims that it bases all of its regulatory policies on scientific evidence).

    Meanwhile, the FDA and the lazy news media have refused to acknowledge that the “deeming” regulation would ban all e-cigarettes (per Section 905(j) and Section 910 of the Tobacco Control Act), would prohibit e-cigarette companies from truthfully claiming that e-cigs “emit no smoke” (per
    Section 911), and would otherwise decimate the e-cigarette industry.

    Even if the FDA exempts e-cigarettes from those most devastating provisions in Chapter IX of the TCA, imposing the “deeming” regulation and additional regulations on e-cigarettes would likely ban 99% of e-cigarette products, eliminate 98% of e-cigarette companies, and basically give the entire fledgling
    e-cigarette industry (comprised of many small companies) to the Big Tobacco and a few large e-cig companies (basically creating an oligopoly).

    The best thing the FDA can do to further protect public health is to allow the largely free market for e-cigarettes to continue flourishing without any federal regulations.

    More than half of the states have already banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, and many more states would have done so had those laws not been opposed by drug industry funded Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and other e-cigarette prohibitionist groups that also urged FDA to unlawfully ban and seize e-cigarettes in 2009.

    These same drug industry funded groups have lobbied state and local governments to ban the sale and use of e-cigarettes, have made many false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigarettes, and have refused to disclose that they’ve been paid off by Big Pharma to promote Big Pharma products and to oppose competitive (but more effective) smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives (including e-cigarettes).

    Stan Glantz has become a pathological liar in his zeal to ban lifesaving e-cigarettes, which will (within five years) be considered just as important for protecting public health as
    pasteurization, childhood vaccines, antibiotics, sewage/water treatment and condoms.

    William T Godshall, MPH
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218
    412-351-5880
    smokefree@compuserve.com

    • Art Toegemann

      Statistics at its most hilarious:
      “are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes”
      Just tell us what’s in the vapor, chemicals, all of them, newly introduced into our air.

      • Matt Zukowski

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0761842513000855

        http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728

        http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf

        E-cigarette are, more or less

        ~70% Propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin
        ~14% flavoring (Capella, Loranne oils, Perfumer’s Apprentice, others)
        ~14% water
        ~2% nicotine

        This solution is heated to 50-100C.

        • 1Brett1

          Is that what is in the vapors? Wouldn’t carbon dioxide mixed with these ingredients change their chemical structure?

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Is that what is in the vapors?”

            I provided a citation that addressed the vapor.

            Why would carbon dioxide react? CO2 is pretty damned happy being CO2. It’s why they use it in arc welding.

          • 1Brett1

            I wasn’t talking about changing the CO2 but the CO2 changing the ingredients chemically…But speaking of welding, the fumes produce a lot of toxins. Ever hear about black lung? Will you continue to cite arc welding to say CO2 is happy to be CO2, and use that nonsense as some sort of argument for e-cigs? You are just being silly now.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I wasn’t talking about changing the CO2 but the CO2 changing the ingredients chemically”

            You mean acting as a catalyst? I provided citations to address this.

            “Will you continue to cite arc welding to say CO2 is happy to be CO2″

            Sure, since it’s use in arc welding is because it’s pretty damned inert.

            “You are just being silly now.”

            You’re just projecting.

        • Art Toegemann

          100-220F. That’s hazardous.
          Tell us the downside of ecigs. You’re a user, the voice of experience.
          Or a shill.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “That’s hazardous”

            Evidence?

            “Tell us the downside of ecigs. You’re a user, the voice of experience.”

            I’d rather cite objective sources. You know, because people like you who don’t have a valid argument resort to poisoning the well.

            http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010%20Bullen%20ECig.pdf

          • Art Toegemann

            Look who can copy and paste but never heard of anecdotal evidence. You’re addicted, not arguing.
            As I’ve shown, your links are to dead ends to your arguments.
            You’re a cessation chore, thoroughly confused (you are the source of “poison”, “cancer” that you project on others) a real burden. Just crawl up to the hospital, scratch on the door like everyone else.
            And you are a shill, exposed, known; ecig heaven indeed. Are you paid, compensated, or just a sucking fool? (Your kind of choice.)

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Look who can copy and paste but never heard of anecdotal evidence.”

            Can we say intellectually dishonest. Citing a clinical trial generally trumps anecdotal evidence. As such, you concede you’re not interested in evidence.

            “As I’ve shown, your links are to dead ends to your arguments. ”

            You’re being dishonest. You wanted downsides, I cited a double blind cross over clinical trial.

            “You are the source of “poison”, “cancer” that you project on others”

            This is where you concede you’d rather someone get cancer and die than pretend to smoke. It’s your believe that pretending to smoke causes objective harm, either in the form of second hand vapor which is not toxic, or the act of smoking which hinders the denormalizing.

            And that whole issue of cessation hitting a plateau ~2001, that doesn’t indicate the methods you propose don’t work on a population level?

            “And you are a shill, exposed”

            Wait a second, the shill is the person who provides credible evidence, not the person who makes vague assertions and can’t back up their claims with evidence?

            The fact of the matter is the Master’s Settlement and cigarette taxes provide .8 Trillion/25 years to states, and this doesn’t include independent settlements like Florida. This $32 Billion+ year in revenue is a huge chunk of bread, and you’re accusing others are being shills? Really?

            Strange world you live in.

          • Art Toegemann

            These concessions you imagine are part of your delusion. You’re in over your head, conceited because you’re better than a cigarette smoker, but blind to the fact that you are much worse than the majority portion of society: we don’t use either and we have no reason to tolerate your vaping (still not a word, for all the usage).
            Your anecdote (!), here, about vaping in a movie theater is an example of your new obsession. You were never allowed to do so by management and would not have been: they don’t allow snacks from outside, ergo. You’re the scientist; see that hypothesis. Or it’s ecig heaven.

          • Matt Zukowski

            This is where you concede you think smokers are worthless, and former smokers who use nicotine are just as worthless.

            “about vaping in a movie theater”

            Theaters exist in Kitsap that permit it, so you’re just being dishonest.

            “We know about search engines.”

            Obviously not since you refuse to use one to look at the available research. Either you don’t know how to use one, or you’re not interested in the research that is counter to your personal opinion.

          • Art Toegemann
          • Matt Zukowski

            Yes, when you can’t win an argument, appeal to ridicule, and resort to stalking.

            //It’s a conspiracy//

          • Art Toegemann

            Tacoma. Shouldn’t you be smoking pot? For the fuzzy logic.

          • Matt Zukowski

            You’re the one with fuzzy logic. Let’s review.

            50% of smokers die smoking, 33-50% of smokers die smoking, Cessation is achieved after 7-11 cessation attempts.

            What do we do.

            1) What we’ve been doing, which hasn’t reduced the body count for 10 years.

            2) Transition smokers who tried to quit to something less likely to kill them, thus increasing the odds of of living long enough to quit nicotine, or not worry about nicotine cessation.

            You propose (1), let smokers kill themselves. This would be groovy except for every smoker who dies, two more take their place, 1 quits, one dies smoking. This doesn’t serve the interest of public health, and repeating the same thing and expecting a different result is the thesis of insanity.

            (2) has the benefit of having research behind it, chiefly from Sweden which has high tobacco use, yet low tobacco mortality and morbidity.

            My logic is sound.

          • Art Toegemann

            “”Tell us the downside of ecigs. You’re a user, the voice of experience.””

            “I’d rather cite objective sources.”
            cute

          • Matt Zukowski

            If you think a double blind cross over trial is cute, great.

          • Art Toegemann

            220C is hot plate hot.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “220C is hot plate hot.”

            Good thing e-cigarettes are NOT 220C.

            You’re very confused. An e-cigarette heats up a coil where the liquid is heated up to 50C-100C. The user is NOT exposed to 50-100C, and we are talking about temperatures comparable to coffee INSIDE the cartoatomizer. The user is insulated from coffee temperatures typically by means of poly fill, no less than 3mm, or 3-5ml of fluid or air gap no less than 7mm, or an air/fluid gap of 3mm.

            In other words, an e-cigarette in operation DOESN’T get this hot.

            Cigarettes in contrast operate at 750-1300F, or 400C-700C.

          • Art Toegemann
          • Matt Zukowski

            Wow, you used Google and cite a vague conversation.

            http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/Scienceresearch/UCM173250.pdf

            The FDA says 60 deg C. Actually so does your source. It hypothetically “could” reach 400 degrees IF dry IF you’re not sucking on it. Another source says 210° which I’m presuming is F, which would be 98.88C. So your citation backs up my statement.

            To put into perspective, e-cigarettes typically operate at 5-12 watts, typically 3.7V with coils 1.5ohms to 3.0ohms, where (volts x volts)/ohms = watts.

            To put into further perspective, a fuse in your car might be rated at 5-20amps at 12v, or 60-240watts. This could totally burn a finger tip. As such e-cigarettes present less risk to the user as a blown fuse.

            This is NOT comparable to a hot plate which operates at around 1000-1500 watts, with a max value of ~1800W on a 15A circuit @ 120Vac.

            A hot plate can boil water in minutes. An e-cigarette is designed to boil 1-3ml of liquid over a period of 16 hours.

        • Art Toegemann

          All three studies were comparisons with tobacco cigarettes.
          The general population doesn’t use either; for which the studies provide no comparison. There is no good reason for the general population to tolerate ecigs.

          • Matt Zukowski

            We already covered this, we allow glade plugins. Glade Plugins are more toxic. You can’t argue that something more toxic should be allowed and something less toxic shouldn’t. That would be silly.

      • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle

        If you can be computer savy enough to post such a stupid question here? ……… laugh and read what millions of consumers already know! See below!

  • Matt Zukowski

    The whole point of indoor smoking bans is the objective impact on the health to bystanders. On what basis should e-cigarettes be banned.

  • 1Brett1

    The testimonials on here about e-cigs. being a wonderful smoking cessation tool are impressive. The data don’t support these claims, however.,. Oh, well, anecdotal data by individuals should be trusted over researched statistical stuff anyway. I mean, no one addicted to anything would ever inflate their success or embellish their personal story.

    • Todrick

      No problem… Soon everyone will know someone saved by ecigs…

      At which point the “data” based on flawed study parameters or worse, greed-based agendas, will be useless…

      Everyone will know the truth

    • Matt Zukowski

      Your being intellectually dishonest. Preliminary data from Italy and HealthNZ indicate otherwise.

      “Oh, well, anecdotal data by individuals should be trusted over researched statistical stuff anyway”

      Except the researched data indicate smoking cessation equal to NRPs and consoling among users not planning to quit, were NRP data is among smoking motivated to quit.

      “I mean, no one addicted to anything would ever inflate their success or embellish their personal story.”

      Yeah, all those people who claimed success with methadone before clinical trials in the late 1970s, yeah, they must have inflated their success. Oh, and all the clinical trials on NRPs, yeah, they must have inflated their success. It is after all a form sent to you in the mail, no cotinine or CO testing. And that whole business about big tobacco profits being down, and this correlating with the adoption of e-cigarettes, yeah, that doesn’t back it up either.

      As for my personal story, I make damned sure I bring up I had one cigarette Jan 2012, which made me throw up. But as one cigarette doesn’t make a smoker, I can say with honesty I decided to switch Feb 2011, and the last cigarette I bummed that year was June.

      • Art Toegemann

        OK, you’re intellectually honest: as a user, you can tell us the downside of ecigs.
        And I don’t know what NRPs are.

        • 1Brett1

          They use a lot of acronyms and abbreviated words in their jargon, but I think these are nicotine patches. I think Matte is either paid to devote his entire waking hours to e-cig stuff or he is really, really obsessed with the product, or both.

          • Matt Zukowski

            And vaccines, don’t forget vaccines. I must be paid for by both big pharma and little faux-smoking. It’s a conspiracy.

          • 1Brett1

            You concede to being a shill

          • Matt Zukowski

            No, you concede to poising the well when you can’t produce a rational argument. As well as appealing to ridicule.

            Why not accuse me for shilling for vaccines. That looks awesome, yeah inject it, inject the whole thing, inject that shinola.

            As such, you concede to employing intellectual dishonesty.

          • 1Brett1

            You are making fun of vaccines and those who have worked to bring vaccines to masses of people. Many of the illnesses prevented by vaccines have killed literally hundreds of thousands of people. By joking around about this, you concede that you would like hundreds of thousands of people to die.

          • Spazmelda

            I assumed he was making fun of people who cry ‘shill’ when they don’t have any logical argument to use in a debate. That’s just my take on his post about vaccines.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, no, he WAS, ostensibly, using humor within what is generally a serious matter (vaccines), which is perfectly acceptable to me, even encouraged; a joke is a joke, and so on, which was my point to him (I purposely distorted his joking, pretended he was being flippant toward a serious subject, and exaggerated it all to the absurd, to put it simply, then feigned moral superiority), but you misunderstood my reply, which was understandable and doesn’t matter, as it was intended as a reply to him. It wasn’t incumbent on me to make my reply understandable to others. So, I’d say, your “take” about his comment was accurate.

            Just to satisfy your curiosity, and by curiosity, I mean your insinuating yourself into someone else’s interactions to defend a person whose views on nicotine you clearly share, which is cool.

            You see, Matt took my joking around about what is a serious subject (addiction, relapse, etc.) and used it as a way to say that, because I made a joke, I then must want people to have problems in their addictions, that I want people to get cancer, that I want people to die, that I am an amoral scumbag completely devoid of any ethics or morality, which was way over the top and completely uncalled for. So, I decided to do the same sort of ridiculous thing to prove a point to him.

            It’s great if people use e-cigs to either quit smoking or reduce their smoking. Ending an addiction/gradually replacing it with another, less harmful one is great. By the same token, if adults wish to engage in some activity that is available to them, so be it; whether it is unhealthy or not, as long as they are informed and not deceived, it doesn’t matter to me what they do, as long as it doesn’t bother me.

            I am skeptical of some claims made about e-cigs, although people claim they have helped them quit smoking (again, good). People claim they are absolutely safe; I am not completely convinced, but I do hope study continues so that the claim of “absolutely safe” can be substantiated to the point where all doubt can be eliminated. I am neither a user of tobacco nor an e-cig user, so the issue isn’t an intimate one for me. I believe that nicotine is addictive, perhaps less so in terms of its dose/frequency of use, intensity and duration, as well as delivery system, etc., as all potentially addictive substances depend on those factors, even things like opiates and cocaine. It’s just an opinion, and that opinion is based on my own observations. There may be doubts out there, which is okay. I am not on a soapbox about it, but if people wish to say they aren’t addicted to nicotine, or I am ignorant, or it is ONLY the delivery system that makes nicotine appear additive, that’s okay too. Not being able to ABSOLUTELY prove nicotine is addictive doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t addictive, either.

            I will say that pretty much any skeptical or less-than-enthusiastic comment that was made on here, anything that didn’t extol the virtues of e-cigs, etc., was met with a considerable amount of smugness, rudeness, self-righteousness and even name calling (as Matt engaged in with me). Even you were kind of rude when I asked what “MAIO’s” were. I really didn’t know, didn’t think the person was talking about MAOIs, and didn’t want to be presumptuous, so I asked. Does that mean you needed to take potshots?

            So, there you have it.

          • Spazmelda

            I was rude in the MAOI comment. My rudeness was in response to my perception that you were accusing the OP of using obscure acronyms, when all she did was make a typo in a fairly common acronym used in tobacco research. My impression was that you were trying to make her appear ridiculous. So, I responded in kind to you.

            I’m not really insinuating myself into a private conversation. This is a message board. Your accusations of pot shots are quite pot/kettle. You have been crying shill all over this discussion. The accusation of shill is a low blow in a debate if it can’t be proven. Because it also can’t be easily disproven. It’s an attempt to poision the well, as was said earlier. Just as we don’t know who you are and what your motivations are in engaging in this discussion, you don’t know who we are or why we might feel passionate enough to argue about details.

          • Spazmelda

            I’m glad that you retain some openness to the potential of electronic cigarettes. Having some skepticism is very good as well. You do mention that you hope for substantiation of the ‘absolutely safe’ claim. This will never happen, and it’s setting the bar too high. Nothing in life is absolutely safe, and electronic cigarettes will be no exception. It is my hope that they will be shown to be substantially safer than cigarettes, and safe enough to offset the risk of some number of non-smokers taking them up. Because that will undoubtedly happen, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. I think they probably will be shown to be safe enough to be a viable method of harm reduction, as long as small or potential risks are not blown out of proportion. I don’t have much hope for small risks not being blown out of proportion though. ;)

        • Matt Zukowski

          You worked for the American Lung Association, and you don’t know what NRPs are?

          • Art Toegemann

            Good writing identifies initials when they are first used.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Good writing identifies initials when they are first used.”

            But you claimed to work for the American Lung Association, which supports NRPs and NRTs. You must have NOT had an important position with them to NOT know this. This means you don’t know the subject matter.

  • HonestDebate1

    They lacked the will.

  • Carla

    Tom is clearly uninformed regarding retiree health insurance, and yet has his own agenda and personal opinions, shown by his questions in the second segment. He usually does a better job of posing neutral questions. The IBM retiree who called in is not on Medicare because it is not the better option for him. He gets better coverage and care on the IBM retiree plan. Also, as the IBM CMO explained, under the previous model, costs would triple, but by opening up the marketplace, competition will help keep costs down. No, they are not expecting their retirees to take on a plan that will triple in cost. (Tom, I think IBM cares more about their retirees than you do, even though they are a “big bad corporation”.) It was under the previous plan, which didn’t work because costs were out of control, that the cost of coverage would have tripled. It is a fact that competition keeps costs from rising. Why not accept this fact when it comes to healthcare? It certainly applies in the technology marketplace; in every marketplace. This is why I call the show “Off Center with Tom Leftbrook”.

  • Carla

    These companies are making changes to align with the new healthcare reality which is Obamacare. They are ensuring their retirees will still have coverage, but it will be from government programs instead. It is easy to see that it makes sense to have retirees go on a government plan if one is available – Medicare or the coming Obama-Exchanges – rather than paying for a plan that grows more costly each year. It should be easy to understand that if the retirees are given a defined contribution to shop for coverage, their former employers are still committed to helping with the cost of healthcare. We should not blame the employers if our healthcare out-of-pocket costs are too high.

  • 1Brett1

    What is sad is for someone who has smoked for decades, and says they’ve tried everything in desperation to get off cigarettes, and then have transferred some of that addiction to e-cigs, all while claiming nicotine is not an addictive substance. One of the commenters on here even called nicotine being addictive a “slogan” that is a myth in one comment then cited nicotine withdrawal as the most common reason people relapse into smoking in another comment.

    What is sadder is the religiosity/fervor with which people defend their e-cig habit. Even sadder is the intimation that nicotine is a panacea.

    • Matt Zukowski

      ” all while claiming nicotine is not an addictive substance.”

      Strawman alert.

      —”Nicotine is addictive” is a slogan, not a proven fact that 100% of scientists agree on. —-

      This is not a claim that nicotine is not addictive.

      You even conceded this point about the lack of evidence to support your position.

      • 1Brett1

        Damn, and here I was going to bet you you couldn’t comment without using the word “concede”! I should’ve! …Much more evidence on the side that nicotine is addictive than not addictive, there, brother.

        • Matt Zukowski

          “Much more evidence on the side that nicotine is addictive”

          Yet you don’t provide this evidence. The problem is to demonstrate your assertion we’d need a clinical trial of adolescents and giving them nicotine, and see if they become habitual users. Such a clinical trial would be unethical. As such, it’s virtually impossible to be conclusive.

          Further, you were clearly trying to present a strawman argument when you concede the point that it’s not proven that nicotine is addictive, or as addictive as nicotine in tobacco or cigarettes.

    • Matt Zukowski

      “What is sadder is the religiosity/fervor with which people defend their e-cig habit”

      Yeah, so sad people are NOT smoking cigarettes, which have kill roughly 1% of their users/year.

  • Bill Godshall

    In sharp contrast to the deceitful fear mongering claims made by Stan Glantz about the potential risks of e-cigarettes, all of the following products and activities emit exponentially greater levels of indoor air pollution than does an e-cigarette, but NONE of the e-cigarette prohibitionists or propagandists have called for banning any of them in workplaces or public places.

    - plywood and other building materials
    - glues
    - paint
    - carpeting
    - furniture
    - appliances
    - cooking
    - every exhale by every smoker for at least an hour after smoking each cigarette
    - smoker’s clothes and hair
    - printers
    - photocopiers
    - computers
    - household cleaning products
    - dry cleaned clothes
    - hair sprays
    - perfumes
    - nail polish and remover
    - air fresheners
    - aroma/scent candles

    Even a cup of coffee emits greater levels of hazardous constituents into the air than does an e-cigarette.

    Glantz and other e-cigarette opponents (who call deceitfully call themselves public health advocates) are fully aware of these facts, but facts don’t matter to unethical and inhumane zealots whose goal is to prevent addicted cigarette smokers from quitting smoking by switching to life saving e-cigs.

    There’s no evidence e-cigarette pose any risks to nonusers.

    Bill Godshall
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218
    412-351-5880
    smokefree@compuserve.com

    • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle
  • Art Toegemann

    Using ecigs is most similar to the behavior of smoking cigarettes than patches, gums, and other methods of consuming nicotine.
    But, the vapor produced by ecigs is a chemical imposition there is no good reason to tolerate.

    • Matt Zukowski

      Except for the fact that we allow Glade Plugins. Those are based on iso-paraffinic compounds. We also allow paraffin candles. The only difference between the plug-in and e-cigarettes is e-cigarettes produce less vapor and are far less toxic.

      And there is a good reason to tolerate, it’s less toxic than a plug-in, and it’s mitigating a smoking habit. But we’ve already established you’d rather someone get cancer and die than seeing them pretend to smoke.

      • Art Toegemann

        I’ll take this opportunity to deny the attempted murder charge by the hysterical Matt Zukowski.
        Can you say “binkie?

        • Matt Zukowski

          Can you say appeal to ridicule. And you’ve already conceded you feel smokers are worthless, and those who use nicotine just as worthless. But this opinion is hardly objective, or credible.

          Anyways the appeal to a binkie is an appeal to ridicule, but isn’t totally invalid. As such, you’d rather someone get cancer and die than risk using a binkie.

          • Art Toegemann

            Stop posing as a philosopher. We have enough irony.
            I recognized you expertise on the subject. I asked for the downside of ecigs.
            No points for being smarter than a smoker.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I recognized you expertise on the subject”

            You already conceded you didn’t, you claimed anyone can google, yet either you can not or will not.

            ” I asked for the downside of ecigs.”

            And you got the HealthNZ Randomized cross-over trial.

            http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010%20Bullen%20ECig.pdf

            http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecig_effect-2.pdf

          • Art Toegemann

            Are you an expert on the subject?
            Are you impartial?
            Dead end links are, again, a chore. In PDF are worse.

          • Matt Zukowski

            I’m obviously not impartial, which is why I’m citing objective research. If you don’t want to educate yourself, that’s your business. We’ve already established you’d rather someone continue to smoke than pretend to smoke, the amoral quit or die philosophy.

          • Art Toegemann

            And a persecution complex.
            “Quit or die” is supposed to motivate you to quit, or to justify intervention.
            Twit.

            Who needs to go to New Zealand to know behavior from chemistry?

          • Matt Zukowski

            “”Quit or die” is supposed to motivate you to quit, or to justify intervention”

            Given the result is death 50% of the time, you’re actually wishing a smoker will die. This is the tough love fallacy. Tough love that doesn’t have a positive effect is simply abuse.

            “Who needs to go to New Zealand to know behavior from chemistry?”

            Oddly enough to do clinical trials in the US, you need to pass an ethics review, which requires the FDA’s blessing, which the FDA didn’t give, so yes, we have to go to NZ for the data.

          • Art Toegemann

            Gee, exactly 50%; more hilarious statistics regarding morbidity. Specious.
            Nicotine patches and gums, both without the volatility of vapor, suffice for withdrawal. This way we don’t have to pry now what out of your face.
            But, thanks for the temperature information.

          • Matt Zukowski

            If you actually read my citations you’d know this. Thus you concede to not read even the biased FDA report.

          • Art Toegemann

            I have read your citations, a real chore, even when skipping to the conclusions.
            You need psychological help, not chemical.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Okay, you concede to not reading the data, even when presented in a single page format.

            I’m not the one who considers all smokers and vapers to be cancers on society, and literally tells people to quit or DIE, with heavy emphasis on the die part. This is borderline psychotic. As such, you’re just projecting on psychological issues.

          • Art Toegemann

            “I’m obviously not impartial, which is why I’m citing objective research.”

            Again, cute. A formal fallacy.

            The FDA blesses plenty of others; not odd.

            See Matt, it’s about interpersonal psychology, like, why we have noise ordinances even though the song won’t kill anyone.

            Persecution complexes among the idle rich.
            Well, I’m no longer amused. Ta.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “A formal fallacy.”

            Hardly. Citing a clinical trial for the downside of a product is HARDLY a fallacious argument.

            Asserting someone is a shill IS.

            “why we have noise ordinances even though the song won’t kill anyone.”

            Yet we don’t have perfume ordinances. As such you concede the point.

            “Well, I’m no longer amused.”

            Because you have a losing side of an argument not supported by evidence or reason. Pleased you concede this point.

          • Art Toegemann

            Just lose Matt. Pack it in. Your obsession is showing; I can’t believe anyone is paying you for such a shabby, counterproductive performance.
            And you have shilled behavior that at least appears, because of the novelty, dangerous. Injuries from ecigs will render you guilty and liable. You think you know every dodge; you do not.
            There will be no concessions on my part.

          • Matt Zukowski

            You’ve provided no evidence nicotine patches or gums produce no vapor. You’ve provided no evidence e-cigarettes produce a volatile vapor. As such, your assertion is unsupported.

            And nicotine gum at best is only 50% above cold turkey, which makes it 95% in effective in 12 week programs. Patches more or less are on par with cold turkey in 12 week programs. Anything beyond 12 week programs is unsupported by clinical trials, but that’s okay in the FDA book.

  • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle

    My Ex Husband was a childhood friend of Stan Glantz, when he visited us in 1987, we were personally berated and insulted by Glantz about smoking. The Ex now is suffering with Emphysemia and COPD, (still smoking). I have used and e-cigarette for 3.5 yrs. and am riding bicycles up hills at 60. Stan Glantz I personally call you out! Your unfriendly character and style that denies SMOKING KILLS and oblivious sense of responsibility to uphold science is tatamount to murder!

    • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle

      correction: (obvious lack of sense of responsibility to uphold science is tatmount to murder!)

  • 1Brett1

    Pfft, e-cigs are so passé! They are yesterday’s method of getting that nicotine “kick”! Why fiddle with all of those e-cig apparatuses when you can just shove a nicotine pill up your bum?! Save your lungs! And, avoid that stigma of having people mistake your e-cig for a traditional cigarette or, worse, a cannabis one-hitter! No one has to know you are dosing when you’re getting that steady nicotine “drip” as the pill dissolves up your anus. You can even do it at work! In church! While you sleep! Anywhere! Anytime! Nic-heads unite and take back control over your “little secret”!

    http://www.iamlost.com/features/nicolaxx/

    • Matt Zukowski
      • 1Brett1

        Now that the nicotine suppository is the new e-cig, and you being an expert in nicotine and all, what so you see as the next big thrill for nic-heads? LIquid solution applied directly to the bloodstream through jugular injection?

  • 1Brett1

    At least it’s not crack!

  • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle
    • http://www.lisabelle-artist.com/ Lisabelle

      THIS IS RIGHT E-CIGARETTES listen to the lies!!!!!!! To the tune of “WE DON’T KNOW, BUT WE WANT THE MONEY ANYWAY…….” “WE NEED TIME TO GET THE MONEY…….”

  • Art Toegemann

    So, it is behavior, not chemistry, that make ecigs the novelty that they are. When patches and gums will not satisfy.
    More stealth marketing.

    • Matt Zukowski

      “So, it is behavior, not chemistry, that make ecigs the novelty that they are.”

      Actually yes, that’s the hypothesis. The hand to mouth behavior makes the transition more transparent, thus may account for those who accidentally quit smoking.

      http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01164072

      • Art Toegemann

        By your own posted list of ingredients, the 2% nicotine in ecigs is insignificant for a weaning off of the tobacco smoking habit; you may as well go cold turkey, there is no chemical justification for cessation. So there is no need for any vapor, a social imposition also unjustified.
        What about those temperatures? They read high enough to be hazardous.
        Your link leads to a study that imagines a healthy smoker and attempts to help the unwilling quit, an impossibility.

        • 1Brett1

          Thanks, Art.

    • 1Brett1

      Since there is the persistent idea that nicotine being addictive is unfounded, it must be that using a cigarette as an affectation has caused Matt to hopelessly, helplessly stay addicted to cigarettes low these many years…Frankly, I’d be ashamed and claim nicotine made me do it all rather than I just wanted to look more like the cool kids!

      • Matt Zukowski

        “Since there is the persistent idea that nicotine being addictive is unfounded”

        Strawman. You concede to having no evidence how addictive nicotine is outside of cigarettes, as such, you concede to making an assumption of facts.

        ” it must be that using a cigarette as an affectation ”

        Misrepresentation. No one claims nicotine in cigarettes are not supremely addictive, thanks in part to the minor alkaloids in tobacco.

        If you can’t be intellectually honest, you should not participate.

        Belluzzi, J.D.; Wang, R.; and Leslie,
        F.M. Acetaldehyde enhances acquisition of nicotine self-administration in
        adolescent rats. Neuropsychopharmacol 30:705–712, 2005.
        http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v30/n4/full/1300586a.html

        • 1Brett1

          Well, you said that if they ban e-cigs you’ll be forced to go back to smoking to get your nic-head kicks..and boy will we be sorry (I think I added that last part). Are you saying that you have no will power whatsoever to stop using nicotine, since it’s not addictive?

          But, hey, it’s your forum. I’m just here for the humor.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “You said that if they ban e-cigs you’ll be forced to go back to smoking ”

            I said no such thing.

            “Are you saying that you have no will power whatsoever to stop using nicotine, since it’s not addictive?”

            Strawman
            http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v30/n4/full/1300586a.html

            Read, learn, understand.

            ” I’m just here for the humor.”

            Because lung cancer and heart disease are a laugh riot. And your intellectual dishonesty encourages people to die. I’m all for healthy skepticism but you kind of jumped the shark on reason a long time ago.

          • 1Brett1

            You’ve now accused two people of wanting others to die, and because they have different views than yours. That’s a pretty cheap shot. But if it helps you to make me out to be Hitler, then, okay, I want all nicotine users to die–well, get their feelings hurt, anyway. (Please don’t reply with, “aha, you concede you are like-minded with Hitler!” At least use a different word, maybe “surrender points” or “yield” or something…get a dictionary or something, please!)

            Maybe one of the others said he would have to go back to smoking; maybe it was Todrick. You guys all sound alike.

            I was wondering when you would invoke the “you’ve jumped the shark” line. Most of your tactics are pat, though, so there’s that.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “You’ve now accused two people of wanting others to die”

            When you make jokes about someone relapsing to cigarettes, this is a serious health issue and a real risk. As such, you concede to being a sick puppy.

            “okay, I want all nicotine users to die”

            Given you joke about the risk of relapsing to cigarettes, you concede this point.

          • 1Brett1

            No, Joking and actually wanting people to die are too very different things. For you to conflate the two indicates how intellectually stunted, over-zealous and self-righteous you are.

            Death and disease from smoking is serious. Extolling the virtues of e-cigs ad nauseam, around the clock really isn’t very serious, in the scheme of things; in fact, it’s kind of pathetic.

            The patches were a big deal when they came out and even not without controversy; now, not so much as a peep. This will be the way of e-cigs in a few years, if they are still around. People steal them, so more and more, they will be kept behind the counter. Sales may be growing, but they are not very profitable…

            P.S.-You do really need to look up the word “concede,” though, seriously. Do yourself a favor and expand you vocabulary a little bit.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “No, Joking and actually wanting people to die are too very different things”

            Encouraging someone to relapse to cigarettes, telling them they can just not tell anyone about it, is not a joke.

            “Death and disease from smoking is serious. ”

            Yet you concede someone’s lung cancer is a joke. Someone’s heart disease is a joke. Someone’s pancreatic cancer is a joke, dying slowly over 3-5 years and finally starving is a joke. No, this just makes you a sick puppy.

            No sane person would joke to an alcoholic to sneak in a drink. No sane person would tell a heroin addict to skip the methadone and go for the gold. There is something seriously wrong with you for suggesting to a former smoker to sneak a cigarette under the radar. This makes you a class A amoral scumbag devoid of all moral and ethical worth.

            “The patches were a big deal when they came out and even not without controversy”

            Yes, and the bottom line is while they do present “some” objective risks, those risks pale in comparison to continuing to smoke. But you already conceded it’s a laugh if someone who use to smoke relapses to cigarettes. And I guess if they die of one of the major diseases, or minor ones, more humor to you.

            While I don’t think the patch is that effective in 12 week programs, you don’t see me knocking anyone who used it or continues to use it. Heck, I’d even cite Dr. Hurt of the Mayo clinic, use it for as long as it takes.

            And the ironic thing is you already conceded the point, suggesting you should perceive it like methadone therapy. Yes, 50% of smokers die smoking. If someone has to take nicotine the remainder of their lives you might personally find it sad, but it beats smoking by a long shot. But no, you would encourage them to sneak a cigarette and risk relapsing to smoking because the serious risks of smoking, and it being seriously addictive, and seriously harmful makes you laugh. And you wonder why former smokers would send you used ashtrays?

          • 1Brett1

            NO, what makes me laugh is over-the-top self-righteousness, over-zealousness, being humorless, standing on a soapbox over e-cigs, people being in denial about their addiction, etc. People dying was not the joke. The nonsense on this forum was the joke. Did you really feel enticed to start smoking again? If so, maybe counseling might help you. Considering how hopped up you stay, it lends itself to jokes about stimulants. Oh, and by the way, I’m not knocking anyone using e-cigs. just those who would spend days around the clock talking about e-cigs and who show a profile that they spend a considerable amount of their time talking about e-cigs online and have tons of information bookmarked about e-cigs…that stuff is funny, maybe not in a haha kind of way, more of a funny/weird/pathetic kind of way, but funny still.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “NO, what makes me laugh”

            Is joking about former smokers relapsing to cigarettes.

            “people being in denial about their addiction,”

            No one claims that, and you conceded this. Instead you make jokes about relapsing to cigarettes, and given we’re talking about people who smoked for decades this makes you an amoral scumbag with no moral or ethical worth. It’s a bit like telling someone to have sex without a condom, and risk catching AIDS. Only a sick puppy would do this.
            “e-cigs online and have tons of information bookmarked about e-cigs”

            I should bookmark my info. URLs are hard to remember at times.

            ” more of a funny/weird/pathetic kind of way,”

            Yeah, because you have to do it right or be a corpse for your amusement. As you said, counseling should help. Regardless you concede to being intellectually dishonest for the sake of humor so any further dialog is moot. If I get cancer I’ll be sure to let you know so you can have a cheap laugh.

          • 1Brett1

            Wow…if you have sedatives prescribed as a PRN, now is the time for one. And that’s no joke. You are bordering on being beyond the pale, here.

            Frankly, I don’t believe you just remember all of the web addresses of the information you’ve presented here in the last two days or simply remembered information outright. Sorry, sue me, but i think there is something else going on with you.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I don’t believe you just remember all of the web addresses ”

            Nice strawman. I already conceded I had to google up a few citations from memory.

            And you’re the sick puppy suggesting former smokers smoke, laughing about it, and you’re asserting something is wrong with me. Nice projection.

            Like I said I’ll let you know if I get cancer so you can laugh at my corpse. I’ll continue to try to get others off cigarettes, suggesting e-cigarettes as a plan b.

          • 1Brett1

            Continue on with your conceding to being on a crusade, then, young Matt, and godspeed! I concede to wish you all the best.

            P.S.-but if I laugh at your corpse, you won’t know I am laughing because you’ll be dead…that won’t do. Let’s see, what to do? …um…hmm…uh…oh, I’ve got it (snaps finger), I’ll go to your death bed and start laughing before you’re dead!!…Besides, I would never laugh at a corpse; that’s just sick!!

          • Matt Zukowski

            “-but if I laugh at your corpse”

            It would be because you think anyone who made the error or starting smoking as a teen is too pathetic to live. They are no better then a heroin junkie after all. They should live with the fear of that sharp pain followed by a heart attack, living a year losing all lung function and asphyxiate, or better still getting pancreatic cancer living three years until too weak to get up let alone pulling one’s own trigger then starving over a period of year.

            This is what you’re telling someone who beat cigarettes to do when you say they should just smoke and die.

            And yes, laughing as someone terminally ill is so much better.

          • 1Brett1

            Yep, that’s exactly what I’m saying; you nailed it!…Oh, and what about smokers feeling guilty, sad and helpless too! You left that part out.

            P.S.-Are you saying heroin junkies are lesser human beings than smokers? What a judgmental, hypocritical snob. I guess your addiction is more special than other addictions? I guess you have less responsibility than other addicts?

            I see you’re back on company time. D’jya have a nice weekend?

  • Debbie Guardino

    Have any of you with your holier than thou attitudes ever considered the idea that some of use DON’T WANT TO QUIT! I didn’t when I first began using ecigs, but within two months I no longer wanted a cigarette. I now can say that I am 2 1/2 years smoke free. I had no intention of quitting, so yeah if ecigs are banned I would go back to smoking, because I enjoy smoking, Much like many people enjoy a drink or two after dinner or a six pack during the game..I’ve been clean and sober for close to 10 years so leave my “nicotine addiction” alone..Yes I enjoy nicotine, so what!? Do you enjoy caffeine or alcohol?

  • Regular_Listener

    I smoke 1 cigarette per day (down from a few a day) & I was perturbed to hear the doctor say that this made no difference in terms of my heart disease risk, that anyone who smokes at all is facing increased risk of heart disease. I found this a little hard to take, and not only because it upset my impression that I am doing minimal harm to myself at worst, but because it defies common sense. If something contributes to heart disease risk than wouldn’t ingesting more of that thing increase your risk? And what about the effects on lung health?

    I did some searching online and could find very little information on studies of light smokers like myself. Most of the studies appear to be on heavy smokers, which as everyone now accepts, is dangerous. I can appreciate that the doctor wants to promote the idea that all smoking is bad and nobody should ever do it if they want to stay healthy, but there must also be genetic and environmental factors, because some smokers live long lives.

    So far as the e-cigs go, I have one and use it occasionally, but I agree that the enjoyment level is not the same. I think they are a good option for people who feel the need to smoke constantly. It sounds like they are probably not nearly as harmful as regular cigarettes, altho more studies need to be done – at least that was my take-away from the broadcast.

  • https://www.facebook.com/Steamlite E Cigarette in UK

    This is true there is also uncertainty about effect of e cigarette. It is better that don’t go on other review, if you like to use and believe that e cigarette not harm then use it. It may possible that this will lead you to stop smoking. Think Positive and Do what ever you like.
    https://www.facebook.com/Steamlite

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 28, 2014
This June 4, 2014 photo shows a Walgreens retail store in Boston. Walgreen Co. _ which bills itself as “America’s premier pharmacy” _ is among many companies considering combining operations with foreign businesses to trim their tax bills. (AP)

American companies bailing out on America. They call it inversion. Is it desertion?

Jul 28, 2014
U.S. Secretary of War Newton D. Baker watches as wounded American soldiers arrive at an American hospital near the front during World War I. (AP Photo)

Marking the one hundredth anniversary of the start of World War One. We’ll look at lessons learned and our uneasy peace right now.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 25, 2014
Guest Renee McLeod of Somerville, MA's Petsi pies shows off her wares. (Robin Lubbock / WBUR)

There is nothing more American than a piece of pie. We taste and talk pies.

 
Jul 25, 2014
Pallbearers carry a coffin out of a military transport plane during a ceremony to mark the return of the first bodies, of passengers and crew killed in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, from Ukraine at Eindhoven military air base, Eindhoven, Netherlands, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (AP)

Secretary of State Kerry to Israel. Obamacare back in the courts. Mourning as remains of Malaysia Flight 17 victims come home. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment
 
The Art Of The American Pie: Recipes
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

In the odd chance that our pie hour this week made you hungry — how could it not, right? — we asked our piemaking guests for some of their favorite pie recipes. Enjoy!

More »
Comment
 
Hillary Clinton: ‘The [Russian] Reset Worked’
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took time out of her global book tour to talk to us about Russia, the press and the global crises shaking the administration she left two years ago.

More »
2 Comments