Monday, July 20, 2009

Mama don't allow no e-cig smokin 'round here

As noted in my last post, using the e-cig has many health benefits and social advantages compared to smoking real cigarettes They can be used to circumvent smoking bans because they do not use tobacco. There is no smell associated with the e-cig, nor is there secondhand smoke to cling to clothing or furniture. So even your non-smoking friends should have no cause for complaint if you sneak a drag or two in their presence.

The health benefits are all too apparent. The e-gig is primarily comprised of nicotine and propylene glycol, without the thousands of “toxins” associated with tobacco.

And, according to the Nitroderm web site: “Cigarettes cause cancer, chronic lung disease, heart disease, and other disorders. It is the toxins in cigarette smoke, rather than the nicotine content, that is responsible for the majority of the harmful effects.” Of course they were talking about the use of nicotine in their smoking cessation products: the patch, the gum, the inhaler, etc.

Public health set out decades ago to eliminate or reduce the alleged adverse health effects of smoking. The e-cig has the potential to do just that. So why are the big players in the anti-smoker cult, like the ACS (American Cancer Society), not endorsing it's use. More importantly, why are some anti-smoker radicals attacking the e-cig with the same venom they usually reserve for smoking tobacco.

Suffolk County (New York) has launched a campaign to restrict use of the e-cig in the same manner in which smoking cigarettes is restricted. This includes banning use of e-cigs in bars and restaurants. The headline on the press release proclaims: “(County Legislator) Cooper Seeks to Keep High-Tech, Unregulated Smoking Devices Out of the Hands of Young Smokers”. Uh-huh. It's to protect the kids.

(Just to veer off topic for a moment, every time the anti-smoker crowd claims their actions are to protect the kids, I try to place my back against the wall and refuse to bend over without donning a pair of cast-iron trousers. It usually means that consenting adults are about to “get the shaft”.)

Now, many people would look at that headline, and nod their heads in agreement. Yes, they'll think, we have to protect the kids. But, take the time to read it again. The devices must be kept “out of the hands of young smokers”. Did they really mean to imply that young smokers are better off smoking genuine tobacco products?

Of course, the bullshit and bafflegab are apparent from the opening paragraph of the press release: “a new, high-tech smoking threat has emerged in the form of "electronic cigarettes."” But, the e-cig is not a smoking threat. It works on the same principle as the nicotine inhaler sold by the drug companies and recommended by the major anti-smoker groups, including such notables as Health Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Health Propaganda, er . . . Promotion.

Paragraph two begins: “Marketed towards young smokers . . .” But, they offer no evidence to support that claim. And, from what evidence is available, the e-cig is being marketed to adult smokers who might want to cut down on their smoking or who are seeking a way to beat the smoking bans. In fact, all the sites I've visited have made special note that the e-cig would not be sold to minors. In addition, it was implicitly stated that it was designed for use by current smokers and not recommended for non-smokers. In addition, the price tag of $75 to $150 places the e-cig outside the average teen-age budget.

Paragraph four claims: “After inhaling, the user then blows out the heated vapors producing a "cloud" of undetermined substances that is virtually indistinguishable from traditional smoke.” We'll call this one a slight exaggeration. At first glance, the exhaled mist (mostly propylene glycol) does look like tobacco smoke. A second glance, however, shows the that the mist is not acting like cigarette smoke; it does not waft towards the ceiling and dissipates rather quickly.

And, anti-smoking advocate Dr. Michael Siegel notes on his blog: “The e-cigarette has been tested and the only two substances that are emitted and which might expose a bystander to any degree are nicotine and propylene glycol. It is unclear that electronic cigarette use causes significant exposure to either of these substances among nonusers."

Paragraph five reaches new heights in hyperbole. "These devices combine the appeal of an iPod with that of candy cigarettes. But they also have the potential to create a life-long addiction to nicotine. They’re just too dangerous to be left unrestricted. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids to be able to get their hands on them."

That statement was attributed to Suffolk County Legislative Majority Leader Jon Cooper, the sponsor of the bill to ban e-cigs. But, it has to be noted that no one, including the manufacturers and retailers of the e-cig, is opposed to restricting sales of the product to adults. It's the second part of the bill that has people concerned. The part that would “place the same public usage restrictions on e-cigarettes that are already in effect for traditional forms of smoking.”

The press release goes on: “To make matters worse, the current lack of governmental testing and regulation means that e-cigarette manufacturers and marketers can make whatever claims they want about these dangerous devices.”

Hmmm. Of course, if there's been no testing, just what evidence is Mr. Cooper and his cohorts relying on to label e-cigs dangerous. And, the real question is not whether the manufacturer can make claims, but whether they have actually made any claims which are untrue or which misrepresent the facts.

No. The real threat is not to the kids. From the Suffolk County press release: “So now, after nearly a decade of progress on public smoking bans nationwide, e-cigarettes are being used where traditional forms of smoking are outlawed. This is causing distress from non-smokers worried about the health effects of second-hand smoke.”

Yeah. That statement puts opposition to the e-cig in some perspective. The real threat is to the anti-smoker cult and their war on smokers.


Anonymous said...

The only danger they present is to to bottom line of the cessation manufacturing company that spent millions to get these bans in the first place, thereby undermining the entire purpose of smoking bans. Also, unlike Chantix, they have no mind altering drugs and can be safely used by airline pilots, railroad engineers, truck drivers, and others in jobs where public safety is an issue.

Dan-Electroniccigarette said...

I recommend and encourage people not to waste any time if they are considering an alternative smoking into helping them to quit smoking. Electronic cigarettes has helped me greatly to stop smoking tobacco cigarettes which is extremely harmful to your overall health. With over 4000 chemical compounds created by burning a cigarette with various toxins and carcinogens that is cancer causing. Compared to an electronic cigarette which has no tobacco, 0 carcinogens or toxins that is no risk to your health, it contains 99% water and 1 percent nicotine which can be addicting but not harmful. Please make the right choice for yourself and for others. Think Right & Be Safe!

Electronic Cigarette said...

The FDA’s laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes.

And smoking electronic cigarettes has so many benefits when compared to tobacco. Electric cigarette is the all new alternative smoking solution that is taking the world by storm. Moreover electronic cigarette allows to smoke a vapor that is free of carbon monoxide. This is one of the best ways to quit smoking forever.

curlyda said...

An very awesome post for E Cigarette. Really it
does changed me a lot. Really want to say thanks to electric Cigarette. Because it does makes me to quit smoking. Now am feeling very very healthy and no more coughs too. thanks a lot for sharing the post dude.