Electronic cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes


I was sitting in Bush Intercontinental Airport
in Houston recently, on my way to a small
scientific conference where I gave a short
talk on my current project.
As I’m sitting, waiting for boarding time,
a very large man sits down right next to me
and pulls a cigarette out of his pocket, takes
a long drag on it, and exhales deeply. Now
I’m old enough to remember the no smoking
warnings being a bit of a novelty, but I hadn’t
seen anyone smoke in an airport in a few decades,
so I admit I was shocked.
The gate attendant sprinted over to … I
don’t know what she had planned, but there
was murder in her eye. The guy smirks and
says, “It’s not a real smoke, it’s an electronic
cigarette… see, no flame, no second hand
smoke.”
The gate attendant explained, with poorly
contained rage, that the FAA and the airline
both forbid the use of these devices. The
guy looked equally outraged, but put the e-cig
back in its case as he started debating federal
policy with reference to nicotine gum, prescription
drugs, and medical needs.
People have been asking me to address the
controversy surrounding these very new alternatives
to smoking cigarettes. It’s not an altogether
easy topic to cover. There just isn’t much
data so far and what little evidence does
exist is contradictory on the health effects.
The e-cigarette was first described in a patent
attributed to Herbert Gilbert in 1963, but
the modern commercial version has only been
around since 2003, invented by Chinese pharmacist
Hon Lik. In 2005, it was approved for export
outside of China by a company called Ruyan
and the international patent was filed only
5 years ago.
In such a short time, they have really caught
on, and are already presenting legislators
with difficult choices. Should they be treated
as drugs and devices, and regulated in the
same way as medical inhalers, since they do
deliver nicotine, or should they be regulated
as a smokeless tobacco product, which in a
way they are?
The difference is whether they meet stringent
safety and purity criteria or merely the basic
standards of an agricultural product. The
US Food and Drug Administration strongly suggested
that should be regulated as a combo of drug
and medical device. Late last year they were
over-ruled. Starting in 2012, e-cigarettes
will be regulated in the US by the FDA as
though they were cigarettes, following much
more lax requirements for manufacturing and
testing. This benefitted manufacturers, because
it keeps costs down, but probably doesn’t
do anything good for consumers.
We should take a very quick detour to explain
how they work. There are two main elements
in the electronic cigarette.
First the juice, which is solution of propylene
glycol or glycerin base, flavor, nicotine,
and water. The PG has been used for decades
in nebulizers with minimal risk, and the FDA
rates it as GRAS, or generally recognized
as safe.
The second element is the mini-vaporizer,
which works by either heat or vibration to
generate a vapor of the juice.
The juice is inhaled by the smoker as vapor
into mouth and lungs, where it condenses and
is absorbed into the bloodstream. It all sounds
like a safer, more convenient, less toxic
way to avoid smoking those dreaded cancer
sticks.
The nicotine delivery works on very different
time scale than cigarettes, and the delivered
dose is quite different. If we measure nicotine
derivatives in the blood of a cigarette smoker,
there’s an initial spike within 5 minutes.
The e-cigarette can take up to 30 minutes
to reach that initial spike. The combustion
products of cigarettes, and the particle size
of delivery is actually very different from
liquid vapor delivery, so the e-cigarette
is much more analogous to a nicotine gum or
patch product. It’s been suggested that the
majority of the nicotine is actually being
absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, essentially
drunk as the juice condenses, passes into
the stomach and eventually the liver. This
is an important difference, because the liver
acts as a filter for toxins, where in smoked
cigarettes, the lungs absorb the nicotine
without passing first through that filtration.
The second paradox is that the delivered dose
can be highly variable in e-cigarettes, and
they may actually be, if this is even possible,
more likely to promote physical addiction
to nicotine than cigarettes.
What about secondhand smoke, or in this case,
vapor? Well, the exhaust of an e-cigarette
doesn’t contain tar, except when it does.
That’s right, in a few cases the juice was
contamined with some byproducts of its manufacture.
The cheapest place to get bulk nicotine is
from tobacco extracts. Sometimes those extracts
aren’t that purified, and some cancer-promoting
substances other than nicotine are co-purified.
The manufacturer acted very surprised when
the lab tests were presented, but I suspect
that it was not that unexpected. The risk
is still relatively low in comparison to cigarettes,
but higher than not breathing in second-hand
smoke.
What else is present in the exhaust of e-cigarettes?
Well, nicotine, and really quite a lot of
it. People around you can still be inadvertantly
exposed to an inhaled stimulant, nicotine.
Nicotine is quite probably the most addictive
drug produced by a plant. It causes long term
changes in neural plasticity, affecting learning,
behavior, and possibly promoting other addictive
behaviors. Unlike cannabis, where the gateway
drug effect is not well supported, nicotine
almost certainly promotes the development
of other addictions like alcohol and eating
disorders. As a friend of mine, who studies
nicotine’s effect on the brain describes it,
nicotine makes you neurotic. That’s because
it increases the level of several neurotransmitters
in your central nervous system. It stimulates
the release of adrenaline and global changes
in brain activity. Long term, it affects the
ability of your genes to be turned on and
turned off by a specific mechanism. There’s
also a correlation to schizophrenia and some
other conditions.
I would prefer that if you’re addicted to
cigarettes that you could stop cold turkey,
and simply never start again. I know that
may not be practical. Research shows that
nicotine replacement therapies can be effective
at helping you quit.
That leads us to the final question of this
video. Are e-cigarettes effective at helping
people quit their addiction? The evidence
so far is inconclusive. People certainly substitute
the e-cigarette for the cancer stick once
they pick it up, but it’s still unclear if
they can then wean themselves off the substitute.
I think in summary I think you’re better off
with another nicotine replacement therapy,
not e-cigarettes. If you are interested in
quitting, try the gum, the inhaler, or the
patch. Talk with a physician and take their
advice.
E-cigarettes might end up as a safe alternative
with better regulation, further technological
improvements, and more research, but right
now they’re probably not a great idea. Keep
in mind that they still aren’t safe around
kids or the elderly or people sensitive to
nicotine.
What worries me the very most about this new
product is the hipster angle. I’m worried
that they’ll become a popular new trend. Public
health agencies, medical organizations, and
government have been combatting the rise in
smoking with great progress over the last
few decades. Fewer and fewer kids are making
the big mistake of picking up the lifetime
habit. I would hate for some new marketing
spin, some new media campaign or underground
movement to reverse all that progress.
It’s estimated that smoking in the US results
in 160 billion dollars in health care costs,
lost worker productivity, and indirect effects,
to say nothing of the grief of a family that
loses mom or dad too soon to lung cancer,
COPD or heart disease.
I’d support any legislation that promotes
updated education for the general public,
but especially school-age kids, about the
dangers of not just smoking, but also other
nicotine products. If you have a young person
in your life, take a minute to talk openly
and honestly about why smoking or other addictions
are a bad thing. Immaturity and the kind of
bad choices we all make at that age shouldn’t
have life-long consequences, but they do.
Do what you can to educate them so they can
see the path ahead. Do it honestly, but do
it now.
Thanks for watching.

100 thoughts on “Electronic cigarettes

  • As someone whose parents talked to them at a young age of the dangers of smoking, and who also went through the D.A.R.E. program in middle school, and who later smoked for five years, then quit, I can say that it really doesn't have an effect when other people tell you about the dangers of smoking. In fact, it surrounds it with a kind of mystique. Allen Carr's book helped me quit without drugs.

  • This is a very useful video for people but I have to disagree that its a gateway drug and yes cold turkey is much better and I agree with that but as you said on the addictive level and how hard it is to quit.
    Gums etc just dont work for most people.
    E-cigs are great way to get rid of the massive damage caused by cigarette smoke and then you can work on getting the nicotine out of your life altogether plus many users say they use the device much less than they would smoke a cigarette

  • This video is so full of misinformation it makes me sick. With all the difficulty that 'vapers' and tobacco harm reduction is facing right now this video just pushes those good efforts 10 years back. THUMBS DOWN! Put an end to this nonsense. Vapers, stand up.

  • The methods you are talking about are "stop smoking" plans. E-cigarettes are substitute or harm reduction strategies that aren't marketed to promote freedom from addiction.

    NRTs increase the chances of successfully quitting by 50-70% vs. no-NRT (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD000146.) That may only be 10% of smoker who wish to quit (I don't have that figure), but there's one thing you can say for those people: they are truly free of addiction to nicotine.

  • Wow. Your replies to some of these comments are comical! Let's see, I was a pack a day Newport smoker for almost 15 years. I've tried the patch, I've tried the gum, hell I even tried the chew, nothing worked. Then I found the ecig, and guess what? IT WORKED!! After two weeks my sense of smell came back, my sense of taste and my overall health improved! I've been using ecigs for almost 2 years now, and I enjoy it!

  • I really am very pleased for you. We may disagree on some topics, but I'm glad to hear you found a risk reduction strategy that works for you.

    I'm always open to being persuaded. I have no dog in this fight, but I hope you can recognize that there's a difference between substituting a safer form of addiction and beating addiction for good.

  • When referring to the FDA testing with regards to tobacco specific carcinogens (TSNA), you are talking as if this was present in the exhalation/vapor of the e-cigarette … but this is not correct (afaik). The table you present is not from the simulated (Head-C) test, but from the test of the full cartridge. Thus the commentary you present, and the later picture of the simulated test are not compatible with the results. Correct?

  • In fact in the simulation test no TSNA's were found at all (quote): "Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative." – same is afaict the case with the nicotine in the 0-nic cartridges.

  • I btw. agree mostly with the message in the video: Try stopping with all means, if you can't, then e-cigs might be an alternative. And: Never encourage others to get addicted – it is simply a bad thing!. As a further aside, i'd love if you would go into some of the newer research that has been done on the subject since this video was created 🙂

  • "NRTs increase the chances of successfully quitting by 50-70%"

    50% of a small number = small number.
    And your own citation indicates the patch by itself is next to worthless. How is cessation defined… relapses do happen after 25 weeks.

    "That may only be 10% of smoker who wish to quit"

    The figures are roughly 50% smokers smoke until death, with 2 new smokers to replace the dead one. The body count has been stable for 10 years.

    Roughly 50% of smokers die smoking.

  • "there's one thing you can say for those people: they are truly free of addiction to nicotine."

    Given how popular caffeine is you'd need a better argument than that. There is no long term data on nicotine use. There is long term data on smokeless tobacco use.

    w w w . ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028661
    tinyurl(dot)com / FDAonSNUS

    It's expected that a 35y/o smokeless tobacco user will live 45.92 years, or 15 days less than less a non user, vs smoking at -7.8 years. The FDA's Data is better.

  • Given the FDA is citing research from lifeline Swedish Snus users, that 15 day average from Cole/Rodu should be less.

    The AAPHP doesn't make this presumption, they presume smokeless tobacco presents equal oral cancer risk to smoking, and even with that the reduction in harm would be 98%, or 1 year smoking equals 50 years of ST tobacco use.

    Dishonestly misrepresenting risks encourages cigarette users to relapse to cigarettes, which contribute ~$.8 Trillion/25years (tax+settlement) in the US

  • This is why the prohibitionist philosophy is not logical. If we accept your data, a person will require 7-11 cessation attempts to quit smoking, and smoking is really harmful. If relapse is the norm, with no change in the cessation rate in 10 years, why not encourage relapses to the less harm product, thus decreasing the chance users will drop dead.

    The only logical explanation is this $.8 Trillion/25yrs.

  • Matt, I appreciate your comments. There's no question that as a risk reduction strategy, e-cigarettes have a lot to offer. I'm just not prepared to charge past what are really important questions about safety. I'm also not willing to ignore the fact that the addiction remains. The lung cancer risk, no question, would be lower… but the cost, behavior, and freedom of the person are still affected.

    The difference to caffeine is that a lot of people who "want to" are able to quit caffeine.

  • Newer research has mostly been positive for e-cigs.
    Minimal lung effect. (Inhal Toxicol. 2013 Feb;25(2):91-101.)
    Little impact on blood cells CBC (Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Oct;50(10):3600-3.)
    May be effective in smoking cessation in schizoprenics (Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Jan 28;10(2):446-61.)
    There's also a minimal effect on heart health and the passive vapor appears relatively safe at medium distances.

    So, that's encouraging. More study still needed, though.

  • We covered this, with real cigarettes and side stream smoke the most a bystander would be exposed to in terms of nicotine would be 1 serving of egg plant during an intimate lunch, or a serving of potatoes if in a smoked filled bar for 4hrs IIRC.

    Passive nicotine was NEVER a health concern, and everything else is approved for inhalation in higher quantities, including the nicotine even in Cali under prop 65.

  • We covered the "nicotine paradox" already. While nicotine is the addictive element in cigarettes, it's been observed to not be as addictive outside of cigarettes. The minor alkaloids in tobacco act as MAOIs and reinforce dependence esp. in adolescents.

    Besides you can get nicotine over the counter already, or at up to 40% concentration without restriction.

    But you missed the point. We tolerate caffeine addiction. Nicotine is a similar compound with similar effects.

  • "addiction remains"

    True, as addiction remains with methadone use. But sane people understand that methadone mitigates opiate addiction and even before the clinical trials doctors offered it freely.

    Nicotine is safer than methadone by a LONG shot, and we only need to look at Sweden's epidemiological data spanning a century to infer an upper limit of the risk. This IS what the FDA does for NRPs, since smokeless tobacco poses little risk then NRPs beyond 12weeks are as safe or safer.

  • According to one researcher at Penn State (Int J Clin Pract. 2011 Oct;65(10):1037-42), enthusiasts typically don't use cigarette style e-cigs His poll suggested 8%. He lacks the EE background, but his observation is valid. E-cigs consume 4-10 watts of power, easily 3.7watt/hrs/day, or 5 180mAh ciggie sized units, roughly a AAAA sized battery.

    The smallest practical size is roughly the size of a AA battery (~900mAh), which you could put in a duck. But why would you want to suck a duck?

  • We do understand the difference, do YOU understand the difference recommending NRT which your own sources show 93% failure rate and strategies that reduce relative risks by 98% or greater?

    Or more important, a prohibitionist strategy that has been shown not to work over 10 years, and a strategy that IS backed by 100 years of epidemiological data, tested, and demonstrated to actually reduce tobacco related mortality/morbidity.

  • I never wanted to quit smoking but due to pressure from the wife I switched to ecigs which of all the methods i tried was the only one that worked.I have not smoked in 2 years and have no desire to but I have had a hard time weaning from ecigs.

  • I disagree greatly with what you just said. I at one point (still am I suppose) was deciding weather to smoke or not. I want all facts. This is not a popularity contest and I wont treat it as one. I am trying to obtain all facts and what people think (even if biased) I will make up my own mind on the subject in due time. I don't think I will smoke with out more information on E-cigs but to say to some one that there "jumping on the ban wagon" is dishonest after all you never smoked too once.

  • IF YOU ARE ADDICTED TO NICOTINE, Give yourself and your loved ones, the greatest gift of all, LIFE. and or a better quality of life. HONESTLY, take it from a 40 year addict of tobacco, "NO MORE"….. WATCH all the eCig videos like this you can, they will help you understand the process that will save your life.

    GET an eCig and try it. What do you have to lose? The over 4000 poisons that big tobacco feed you everyday. Best Of Luck To "ALL" of You…..God Bless
    Thanks Shawn, WE Owe Ya Big

  • mt doctor was happy i was vaping and not smokeing the real thing so there stop real smokes and vap ecigs they are safer then real one,s so take that to the bank i smoke 40 years this made me stop so vap on fda don,t know what there talking about there drugs all over that can kill you that the fda say. are safe and they are not.i know i,v been there.

  • This is the old "reductio". Watch how I can use it similarly:
    "I can't go 120 miles/hour down a residential street! What's next? I have to get out and push my car? I have to ride a horse? We all have to sit in soft chairs, wrapped in bubble wrap?"

    It's a silly tactic, and I don't take it seriously. The "slippery slope" does not go from "be careful about untested drug products" to "we will do your thinking for you" in one step. Try to have a little perspective.

  • I had bee smoking since I was 15y, smoked alot more (unfiltered) for about 11 years. I tried quitting (cold turkey) a number of time until finally, I quit. What mainly caused me to quit, outside of cost, was the fact I could no longer smoke w/o becoming nauseated and having to go the the bathroom shortly thereafter (diarrhea) after smoking. Each time I quit and started back up, the nausea and diarrhea were worse than the last time until I just could not stand even the smell or taste of …

  • …cigarette smoke. Tobacco leaves, pipe tobacco, and cigars are all well and good and smell great. Some cigars I have no problem with. I think it is probably the level of nicotine spike (combined with the inhaling of some of the "fillers") which lead to my reaction and ultimately, I am glad for it. An added plus, my clothes do not smell disgusting anymore 🙂

  • Lol tsunami flavored hookahs are a huge thing where I live and no one seems to have a problem with these water vapor cigarettes.

  • My husband uses ecigs, and he has offered me a taste on more than one occasion, because it was "safe" and flavorful. I looked him like he was crazy, telling him that I'm not looking to develop a nicotine addiction at this time. I can easily see how ecigs could become a fad in themselves. Local college students use them a lot. However, ecigs are the only tool that has worked to get my husband off cigarettes, which he began smoking over 30 years ago and quit 6 months ago.

  • I've seen two douchebags smoking these things in the gym…had to call them out…didn't go well…oh well, fuck 'em…I hate hipster shit like this…if you're trying to quit and it helps, cool…taking them into the gym, piss off…

  • The public smoking bans in many states is what's most directly responsible for recent decreases in teens & young adults. The handful of kids who start smoking in high school is nothing compared to the number of people that begin smoking once they go to bars & clubs at 18. And for all the hand-wringing from smokers before the bans, they actually enjoy going outside for some air & socialization with other smokers. Whether ecigs have 2nd-hand effects, they should follow the same public place bans.

  • I am a smoker, and from my personal experience i can tell you that nicotine gums and patches don´t work for people who are heavy smokers, because you can´t treat an addict with the drug that makes him one. On the other side, the act of smoking itself has a tremendous psicologyc impact that has to be taken into account,you can regulate with ecigarettes the amount and dosis of nicotine you inhale, up to 0 nicotine WITHOUT quitting the ACT of smoking itself. Still, if I where to buy an e cigarette

  • i would inmediately test in a lab the substances that come with the liquids to see what they have, because since they are unregulated or poorly regulated, they can have pretty much anything inside of it and still make trough the chain of production.

  • I give props to this video, this is probably the first time I have found a video that is critical but honest (I'm sick of the "it contains an ingrediant of antifreeze etc…). The one thing I do feel that was lacked, is mentioning that many ecigs do provide potential stepdown paths that may be more helpful to people quitting smoking. Mainly that most eliquid manufacturers offer many ranges of nicotine stregnth, ranging from 30-8mg, and many vapers do take the action to step down.

  • Bigfoot lives in Montana. I know a guy whose cousin saw his footprints there, he thinks.

    Don't we need a higher standard of proof than "I assert it to be so"?

  • “Nicotine” The Gateway drug….Please!
    I don’t really give a damn if I never get off nicotine ..I just don’t want to die of cancer ,get emphysema or any other COPD .

  • Thumbed down. I've been a moderate smoker for many years, wanting to quit but putting it off because I enjoyed smoking. I've been vaping for a few weeks now, with no desire or craving for cigarettes. It is clear that the health risks associated with ecigs are minuscule compared to smoking tobacco. I'm not interested in patches or gums, I enjoy vaping and will continue to do so. It is a lot cheaper than cigarettes, so that's another benefit.

  • I disagree, if you want to quit, try a e-cigarette. Why? Because success rates are much higher than nicotine gum or the patch. MUCH higher. This is worrying a lot of people who produce nicotine gum & patches, it's worrying tobacco producers as well. But the fact is if you're serious about quitting smoking, pick up a Blu e-cig at Walgreens, they have disposables available for only $10, it will give you a chance to try it out before committing any more money.

  • Your bad language only shows what a smug patronizing git you are. You seem to have misunderstood – this debate isn't about science or health – it's about control and most of all it's about MONEY.

  • Sometimes reality is shit, deal with it. There is nothing about E-Cigs that make them better than normal cigarettes, and unless the cigarette market is regulated to ensure there IS a difference then that will continue. I agree, it is about money but the point of this video is that even with these E-Cigs you're still going to off yourself or someone else with lung cancer unless the E-Cigs are made to follow their promise.

  • That may be misguided thought. Sorry, but the Durring-Kruger effect seems to be working here.
    Burning tobacco, the radioactive residue from the cheap phosphate fertilizer used on it, plus the additives used in cigarettes is what seems to cause the cancer.
    You need to do a bit of research.
    There seriously needs to be some sort of IQ test to allow users to post comments on YouTube. By the way, British American Tobacco is now selling e-cigs. I wonder why!
    Anyway (teenage) bullshit rolls downhill.

  • I went from a pack and a half a day to ecigs. I've been using them for two and a half years now. In general I treat them like cigarettes. I go outside to use it. I will use them in other people's houses/cars only after obtaining permission and explaining that there is no lasting smell, but second hand effects are currently unknown. It costs me around $40 per month now as opposed to $7 a day on cigarettes. The digestion aspect certainly explained the heartburn I got when I started.

  • I do agree and this was a fair video on e-cigs. NRTs are better regulated and tested therefore would be the logical choice for quitting. There is quite a ways to go before e-cigs reach that level however I would like to point some people towards its progress. There is research done by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health which shows that any level of VOCs or other contaminants in e cig vapors are well below levels to warrant any health concerns. Please check it out.

  • also please check out the American Council on Science and Health at acsh.org. As well as the Consumers Advocate on Smoke-free Alternative Association at casaa.org.

  • Jason, even a quick perusal of their Wikipedia page will show the ACSH is a scientific "advocacy group" that is funded by industry. If I were being snide, I would call them the mouthpiece of industry. They oppose most public health measures that harm industry.

    CASAA, likewise, is an e-cig advocacy group and don't even pretend to be objective or fair on this issue. They are PR flaks, and you can see them pop up in any social media discussion to spam the comments with industry soundbites.

  • Yes, they are both advocacy groups for e-cigs. So would you say that all the studies funded by these group or the industry are inaccurate even if they were done by independent labs?

  • Let's say my salary is payed for by Ruyan and the e-cig industry. I commission twenty studies on e-cigs from university labs. Eighteen return results you find displeasing. Two return favorable outcomes. I publish selectively the results of the two favorable studies.

    Independent tests cannot be funded by "advocacy groups" for this very simple reason. It's why all clinical trials are now pre-registered.

    I am skeptical of industry funded research… why aren't you?

  • They should be regulated as medical devices under 21CFR803 because they are nicotine drug delivery devices, pure and simple. The "juice" needs to be regulated as a drug, which it is, and meet stringent cGMP manufacturing requirements under that guideline.

    I'm sorry if that cuts into their profit margins, but drug delivery systems need proper testing, QC and manufacturing requirements.

    While we're at it, they need to submit to clinical trial guidelines before making health claims.

  • I can only speak on how my body reactred when i went from 2 packs a day to my ecig.

    Within a month my smokers cough was gone, i had more energy, didn't wake up hacking up gunk or hack up gunk at all, my asthma which i have had since birth improved immensely, i no longer have blood flow issues to my extremities when i try and sleep in a cold room, my hands and feet don't refuse to warm up anymore. I'm less pale as their seems to be better blood circulation, pinker lips and cheeks. cont'd

  • I feel normal now that i'm on an ecig and physical activity doesn't wipe me out anymore. I've gone from a fairly high 36 mg to 18 and will hopefully soon make the jump to 10, then 5 and someday zero. I make sure when i buy "juice" i know what's going into it and where it comes from, it only has a few ingredients.

    The trouble with reviewing ecigs is theres many suppliers and manufacturers. I see some very unreputable chinese producers that put awful things in theirs representated as "ecigs".

  • Were you to approach this from a scientific perspective concordance… then there is evidence. The 1.7 million e-cigarette users in the UK… the 4 million or so in the US… and the zero health concerns reported to doctors and zero folks turning up in the A&E suffering from related health issues. Thats a rather large sample of users.

    Unless you are now going to consider the absence of evidence itself as a reason to legislate e-cigarettes. Why? And how can one address a fictional problem?

  • Also manufacturers were surprised that the FDA identified nitrosamines obviously, even though they are lower than the level in tap water. (see the EPA's examination of tap water)

    Personally thats where I'd suggest the reading came from in the FDA report.

    The entire point here is that if e-cigarettes demonstrate safety above other products freely available… then that's all they need to be unregulated since everything has some tiny level of toxicity.

  • "Unless you are now going to consider the absence of evidence itself as a reason to legislate e-cigarettes."

    Thalidomide was introduced in Europe in 1957-1959 as an over the counter therapy for nausea and morning sickness. Sporadic cases of birth deformities weren't reported as linked, and the elevated rate wasn't detected until the mid-1960s. By then, tens of thousands of children had been affected.

    Yes, I insist on positive evidence of safety from testing.

  • "Among middle school students, ever e-cigarette use increased from 1.4% to 2.7% during 2011–2012 (p<0.05)"

    "Among high school students, ever e-cigarette use increased from 4.7% to 10.0% during 2011–2012 (p<0.05)"

    "E-cigarette experimentation and recent use doubled among U.S. middle and high school students during 2011–2012, resulting in an estimated 1.78 million students having ever used e-cigarettes as of 2012."
    MMWR Sep 6, 2013 / 62(35);729-730

    Yes, e-cigarettes are getting very popular.

  • The e-cig industry is truly tiny when you compare it to actual industry…. and ACSH (founded in the 70's to combat junk science) are a charity.

    They have no industry members on their board, trustees (almost all of them) are recognized published scientists in assorted fields.

    They are funded by a plethora of organizations, foundations and private donations… about 30% of that is from industry. Mostly a large base of small industry donations. Not sure how snide you might be ….

  • CASAA are mostly e-cig users… the e-cig industry tend to give them a wide berth since they tend to say things that would wind the average business up in court.

    For instance they point out that e-cigs can be used for 'smoking cessation'. The FDA claim that is a 'medical claim' but seem to be a little lost when trying to explain it. Because as you and I both know it would be claiming to remove 'nicotine dependence' that would be the medical claim… not addressing the behavior of smoking.

  • "They should be regulated as medical devices under 21CFR803 because they are nicotine drug delivery devices, pure and simple."

    "The "juice" needs to be regulated as a drug, which it is,"

    Like cigarettes are for example? Are they not nicotine delivery devices too? And drugs? Do you think cigarettes would get a medicinal license?

    There is a distinction between a medicinal compound and one that is not…read it.

    Can you give an example of a US e-cigarette vendor making a medicinal claim?

  • There is a difference… but why on earth would someone care about reducing or removing an addiction if that addiction does them no harm and the behavior in response to it give them pleasure?

    Or are you stating they 'should' address the addiction whether they like it or not…

    Beating addiction for good would also remove 90% of foods, almost all sports, most alcoholic drinks, the armed forces and the opposite sex from the planet… sounds really boring.

  • "There seriously needs to be some sort of IQ test to allow users to post comments on YouTube"

    Agreed… I watched that movie 'The Internship' the other day… there's a bit in it where a good idea for a new app is to ask a very complex question before you are allowed to send a tweet or message when drunk thus avoiding embarrassing nonsense the next day…

    I think the same should apply on YT. and commentator required to answer a question about the content before being allowed to comment.

  • Thalidomide is still widely used, more so now than in the past.

    Also the e-cigarette had 1960's technology & science to demonstrate a downside nobody was looking for. E-cigs have every pharmaceutical desperate to find a downside using 21st century technology and the same time period has passed. No dangers yet… but lots of lives saved.

    Even so, even if there was some unforeseen danger…precisely what action could be taken to rectify it with no knowledge of what that danger might be?

  • I think your now in full swing cherry picking from all that evidence that seemingly is not there in any real depth… odd that?

    Don't you agree? Are you sure your not just a tad in the grips of confirmation bias right now? Because the studies you are quoting there are simply not matched by observation of the population using e-cigs.

    After all millions of Americans chew gum. Not all the studies are in yet there either….Gum could be carcinogenic…you never know… whats your point?

  • The vast majority of my customers… well over 70% I'd say (although I haven't counted them all) are over 40.

    But pointing out kids might be experimenting with them is truly pointless if no dangers are demonstrated…. I think you are falling into the same irrationality you oft times have pointed out in others.

    No dangers demonstrated would make 'kids experimenting' with e-cigarettes a defunct argument… they experiment with coffee too!

  • Frankly its not observed. Can you imagine the laughter in any school cafeteria if some idiot showed up sucking on an e-cigarette.

    If you look around the streets at who is using e-cigarettes you'll find its ex-smokers.

    1.78 million extra e-cig users if a doubling of the year before would be an absolutely huge rise in e-cigarette sales. It would mean that the 2013 figure would be almost 3.5 million under 18's.

    Ergo its not an accurate figure because it would represent half of all US users.

  • Okay… look at your own reference there… by your reckoning assuming the 2100 – 2012 trend were to continue in 2013… then more school children have tried and e-cigarette by now than there are smokers in the adult population… don't you think that's just a little unlikely?

    Its simply not observed in the population. Despite what the CDC say, their figures are wrong because they contradict observation.

    A more interesting question would be 'how many high school kids smoke cigarettes?'

  • Basically what I'm saying above is that you apply a solution to a problem when you know what the problem is… its not possible to apply any solution at all with no knowledge… however I notice a growing hysteria that suggests the solution to 'no problem' should be to simply ban everything to do with electronic cigarettes outright….just in case.

    Given that e-cigs have now dug a hole almost $17bn dollars into the annual sales of tobacco do you think that's a wise solution to no problem?

  • All e-liquid will contain nirtosamines… however its the level of these carcinogens that denotes their toxicity in parts per billion. So for example a slice of toast, a cup of coffee, a glass of water and a bacon sandwich will all have more nitrosamines than a 10ml bottle of juice…. but they are still below the safety threshold… well maybe except for the toast.

    Odds are the water in the e-liquid they tested was from a US standard water supply or was introduced accidentally.

  • By the way… I really love the sentence relating to carcenogens' that "the level was lower than in traditional cigarettes… but higher than NOT breathing in second hand smoke'"… isn't that comparing something… to nothing as if the nothing was something?

    As I said compare those level to something you think is benign…that we all do, day in day out… we create air, drink coffee… don't compare to NOT drinking coffee which is a total absence of a comparison.

  • Rather ironically tap water passes the EPA's toxicity level measurement for safety, but as the EPA say themselves that level can be exceeded if you boil the water because the water evaporates increasing the concentration of nitrosamines.

    Even more ironic is that very same basic process is what stops e-cig users from inhaling the non toxic levels of nitrosamines in the e-liquid anyway!

    But given this knowledge and the scare story should we consider banning water? After all folks might boil it.

  • Most e-cig companies are small businesses, they wouldn't even turn over the money required to get a medical license. It wouldn't 'cut' into their profits, it would put them out of business. Plus they make no medicinal claims.

    If nicotine is a drug and electronic cigarettes a delivery device, then cigarette companies should also be require regulation as a drug in precisely the same way.

    This argument is flawed fundamentally, caffeine is also a drug, are mugs drug delivery devices?

  • I gave up smoking 20 years ago…

    You feel better almost immediately… after a year, risks for associated issues drops significantly….

    Personally, I feel it takes 1000 days to get it totally out of the system and to break the cycle of addiction.

    I wish you success… if you fail the first, second, or third time… don't give up trying to give up… quitting is like pushing over a fridge… you have to rock it a few times. It took me 5 years of trying.. if I can do it so can you.

  • I've given up my 2 pack a day habit for an e-cig now going on two weeks today actually, and I feel a lot better for what it's worth.  I can smell, taste, and breathe better.  Nothing out there is 100% safe, but as long as I stick to my goal of dropping the nicotine level in the juice gradually, I think I stand a better chance than I did with the patch and gum (which didn't work for me at all – in fact I think I smoked more when I reverted and failed). 

  • As an FYI to the original poster there is another member who has posted your video (with ads) found here <<< Vid ID: bMZf8g4UYSI — Title:Regulating E-Cigarettes >>>

  • E-cigarettes do NOT deliver nicotine. More than 90% of the juices available don't contain nicotine. You really do not know what you're talking about. 

  • Can you do a follow-up video on this subject? There might not be a need to make one. You do better research than I can. I didn't really want to stop my nicotine addiction but I quit smoking regular cigarettes using e-cigs. I figured, with effort, the addictive power of nicotine would change the method of delivery part of the addiction. Some people say it is less dangerous and others claim more dangerous. I have been saying there is no good data but it is less expensive.

  • The most addictive drug from a plant? Ever hear of opium? yeah all non synthetic narcotics and heroin come from the poppy plant

  • I have some fucking stupid friends who don't smoke cigarettes, but smoke high nicotine concentrations out of e-cigs. They may not be getting the carcinogens from cigarette smoke, but they are, in fact, addicted to nicotine now.

  • The righteousness of the airline attendant was comical but so typical for today.
    PC liberals are some of the worst, while they tend to be defensive of pot smoking.

  •  Question. Have there been any studies about pure nicotine administered orally, intravenously, etc..? Every single study I've read about nicotine in the human body, has been related to tobacco products, as in cigarettes, cigars, smokeless, and so on.

    Now based off of those studies, we know that there are many other chemicals involved with the manufacturing of cigs/dip, as well as during the process of burning tobacco. We know some of those chemicals by themselves have effects, carbon monoxide, for example. So to say that nicotine is the only thing actively causing an effect upon inhalation of cigarette smoke, would be foolish and unreasonable.

    What are the effects of nicotine by itself both in the short term (effects on the body, experiential data.), and in the long term (health benefits/detriments/neutrals) and in different forms of ingestion? If anyone has peer review data regarding this, it would be much appreciated. I'll search for myself as well. Or any arguments regarding my idea/question.

  • In the past 10 years, over 300 studies were done about e-cigarettes, the chemicals used there are known for much longer, the propylene glycol for example is regulated in most countries concerning work exposure.

    Nicotine itself is to my knowledge not the killing part of a cigarette either and I did some quite extensive research on that.
    Hell, there's tons of research concerning its benefits. To cite a fairly new study from the early 2014 'This notorious stimulant may enhance learning and help treat Parkinson's, schizophrenia and other neurological diseases. '. This actually contradicts with the message of this whole video concerning nicotine.

    What fundamentally makes e-cigarettes so hard to deal with is the fact that they might prove to be an effective entry point to tobacco smoking while on the other hand, making them harder to get like regulating them as medicine would kill off any development and 'innovation' and making them dull, thus possibly condeming millions of lifes to their deaths.

  • Where did you get the figure for 30 minutes? I know you released this two years ago, but I am curious.

    I read the article and they state that they were seeing spikes after 5 minutes and your graph seems to show that quite clearly. I am thinking that you extrapolated the e-cig data until it reached the level of the cigarette spike, but I wouldn't expect you to do that.

    Genuinely, I just want to know. Please answer.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *