I am tired the public being told half-truths. It shows a lack of respect. I'd like to clarify some announcements made by the FDA about electronic cigarettes. The FDA claimed that e-cigarettes contain nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic. But they are not giving you the amount actually detected, and comparing it to cigarettes (known killers of 400,000 people a year), and their own approved gums, patches, lozenges, and nicotrol. I don't think they want you to know that the detectable carcinogens in the approved items are similar to the e-cigarette. In fact they tested the Nicotrol inhaler along with the sample of e-liquids, but didn't publish the results of Nicotrol. Why? They claim that e-cigs are attractive to kids. I could name a hundred items that are attractive to kids that they shouldn't have. They claim that the flavors are attractive to kids. But the nicotine lozenges just came out with 2 new flavors; cherry and cinnamon. Alcohol comes in wonderful flavors as well. They claim that they found diethylene glycol in one brand of one bottle of e-liquid. The liquid was a very high strength of nicotine, and the liquid was flavored with tobacco. Tobacco is treated with diethylene glycol. However the one sample of one brand containing this carcinogen shows how badly we need the FDA's help in establishing quality control for a safe product. I have smoked a pack a day for 35 years. With the last price increase on cigarettes, I wanted to save a bit of money and purchased an e-cigarette. I had no intention of quitting, however after 2 weeks, it just became very easy to quit. Thousands of other people can tell you a similar story. Please help us stay tobacco free and live longer. And ask yourself one question: Why does the Government really want to ban electronic cigarettes, and be willing to withold half the truth to do so?

WHAT IS A PERSONAL VAPORIZER? (E-CIGARETTE)

How does the electronic cigarette work? It has a battery, which is rechargeable in most cases, and the
battery powers a heating element called an atomizer which touches a cartridge holding e-liquid (aka nic
liquid, nicotine liquid, e-juice, juice, nic juice, etc...). The power on the device is activated either through
pneumatic pressure (inhalation) or a manual switch. When the atomizer heats the liquid sufficiently it turns
the liquid into vapor which is inhaled and delivers nicotine to the bloodstream through absorption through
the mucous lining in the respiratory tract. The vapor (steam) is then exhaled.
 What is in the exhaled vapor/steam? The vapor is visible and most times contains a mixture of nicotine
(though the liquid is also available without nicotine), flavoring (although also available without
flavoring) and propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin. Propylene glycol is the liquid used in "smoke
machines" at shows and clubs and it is also used as a food additive and as a component of various skin
care and makeup products as well. This component is generally regarded as safe for consumption by the
FDA although inhalation is not the same as ingestion. Fewer studies have been done on vegetable
glycerin based formula.
 Who uses this product? This product is intended for smokers and other people addicted to nicotine
looking for a less hazardous way to maintain their nicotine usage and avoid certain risks to their own
health and the health of those around them. The average age of the PV user is around 40 years old. Non
smokers would not be likely to use the device and if they desired to, it can be used without nicotine.
 Does it contain tobacco? The name electronic cigarette is quite deceiving since the device actually
contains no tobacco and nothing is burning. The lack of combustion means reduced carcinogens and no
tar being inhaled into the lungs. This may reduce some of the health risks of smoking traditional tobacco
cigarettes.
 Does it taste like a cigarette? No. Although there are "tobacco" flavors, these flavors do not taste exactly
like cigarettes because there is no burning and the vapor will never be as heated as the smoke was. There
are many different flavors available (fruit flavors, coffee flavors, chocolate, caramel and vanilla, nutty
flavors and nearly every flavor you can imagine) and after a short time using the device many smokers find
the taste of the vapor much more pleasant than cigarette smoke which often decreases the desire for
traditional (aka analog) cigarettes. These flavors are not marketed towards children just as flavored liquor
and flavored pipe tobacco are not marketed toward children. The scent of the vapor is typically similar to
the flavor the vapor is, but is faint and unlikely to be noticed unless in close quarters.
 Does using the device save money over smoking regular cigarettes? The average smoker spends
between $2000 and $4000 a year on cigarettes. The average PV costs between $50 and $70. Monthly
maintenance of the device and refilling of cartridges can cost anywhere between $40 and $100 a month.
This varies greatly depending on upkeep of the device and willingness to refill cartridges with liquid rather
than replacing them when they run out.
 Where can I get one of these? They are mostly available for purchase on the internet. There are many
websites to purchase them from. All websites selling them require payment by credit card or paypal which
should ensure all people purchasing the product are over 18 years of age. Some malls which have kiosks
in the middle of the mall where they demonstrate and sell these products, but in those situations the
average cost of a device would be well over $100.
 These devices allow for less litter on our public streets and property. They eliminate second hand
smoke and allow people around the person using them the freedom to breathe.
More info at www.VapersClub.com
Information on Electronic Cigarettes
What is the electronic cigarette?
The electronic cigarette is also known as an "e-cig", "a
personal vaporizer", a "PV", a "nicotine vaporizer" and
many other things. It is a device used to intake liquid
nicotine in vapor form and is used by many people in
place of cigarettes and in situations where cigarettes are
not permitted.
Smoking causes cancer and
emphysema and still 1 in 4
Americans smoke cigarettes.
People will smoke regardless of
whether it is life threatening. This
device provides an alternative to
smoking tobacco cigarettes
which has not yet proven to pose
any long term health problems.
Sponsored by the Long Island, New York Vapers Club

WHAT NEW ZEALAND THINKS OF FDA'S POSITION

NEW ZEALAND OPINION OF US FDA RE; ELECTRIC CIGARETTES Row breaks out over safety of e-cigarettes Every time you take a drag on a cigarette you breathe in 4000 toxins Sat, 25 Jul 2009 4:39p.m. New Zealand researchers are clashing with US health officials over a new anti-smoking aid, after a world-first trial was run by Auckland University. The US Food and Drug Administration wants the electronic cigarette banned, but experts here say it does more good than harm. It looks like the real thing, puffs out a mist that looks like smoke and most importantly, it provides the nicotine kick that smokers crave - but the e-cigarette has one big difference. "They're not going to die from an e-cigarette," says Dr Murray Laugesen. "But they could die tomorrow from a heart attack due to their smoking." The FDA, which regulates medical products in the US, isn't so sure. It says its tests found cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes and wants them banned from sale until more studies are done. "What's remarkable actually is the lack of evidence that these products are any better than standard smoking cessation treatments, and secondly the inadequate testing for their toxins," says Dr Michael Thun, American Cancer Society. Auckland University has run the first ever trial of the e-cigarettes. It looked at withdrawal symptoms after using one compared to a nicotine inhaler and a regular cigarette. Researchers can't reveal the results until they are published in a medical journal, but they told 3 News the FDA is getting unnecessarily alarmed over one ingredient - propalene glycol. It is a chemical used in antifreeze, and can be seen drifting across the stage at rock concerts - but there is no evidence it is harmful. But that's not all. "The carcinogens that we have found have been in very, very small quantity, just above the level of detection," says Dr Laugesen. In contrast, every time you take a drag on a cigarette you breathe in 4000 toxins. At this stage, New Zealanders have to go online and import e-cigarettes, but Dr Laugesen would like to see them more readily available here and says he would not hesitate to recommend e-cigarettes to anyone wanting to quit. 3 News

QUOTE BY E-CIG VAPER

ecig and government
Davelog, I love these two quotes of yours:"If you want people to not smoke, stop blocking the most effective tool to date towards getting the die-hard smokers to cut back or quit".
"All this does is validate the theory that the stop-smoking movement is just lip service, as smoking benefits society more than you'd like to admit. "
The actions of the government proves what they think is more important; money, or people needing their help

A PERSONAL VIEW ON ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES

FDA vs electronic cigarettes
The government and the snobbish puritans in society are HYPOCRITS! They speak out of both sides of their mouths. They condemn and treat tobacco smokers like drug addicts, stating how bad real tobacco is (which it is, and I do not dispute), but then turn around, and say ban e-cigs, which has already proven to get thousands of tobacco smokers off of tobacco. NOTHING is 100% safe, but e-cigarettes are much more safer than real tobacco. Drinking caffeine has already been proven to be more damaging. And what is next? Going after all people ten pounds over weight, because it is unhealthy? If the government really cared about the health of its citizens, it would have long ago banned real tobacco and tobacco farms years ago. Here is the TRUTH: The government wants smokers to keep smoking, in order to reel in the billions of dollars in taxes annually that smokers pay for their habit. The pharmaceutical companies want control and money for their nicotine products (nicorette gum, patches, etc.). They don't want the e-cig sold by independent distributors and manufacturers, because it takes away from their profits. The pharma companies long ago spent billions of dollars on research to PROVE that nicotine, although considered a drug, is not cancer causing, in order to produce and sell their very expensive nic patches gum, etc. The only time nicotine can be dangerous, even fatal, is if consumed in high quantities in liquid form. Otherwise, if it were dangerous, nic patches and gum would not be allowed for sale over the counter as it is today. If they were worried that minors and people who don't smoke were more likely to consume nicotine via the e-cig, then they would never allow nicotine gum and patches be sold over the counter. LIES, LIES, LIES! Furthermore, upon research, one will find that many U.S. senators and powers to be, hold stock in many tobacco companies. So the truth is, they care nothing about your health, and would prefer you remain smoking the real dangerous product called tobacco, while at the same time, bitch at you for smoking, and even remove health care coverage from you, should you become sick due to smoking the real tobacco. TIME FOR A VERBAL REVOLUTION! TIME TO STOP THE GOVT. AND THE NON-SMOKING FANATICS FROM INTRUDING ON OUR PRIVATE LIVES! For the record, my husband no longer has a raspy voice since vaping e-cigs, or a cough, since quitting tobacco. MANY, even thousands of e-cig customers are testifying to how well they feel since giving up tobacco, while now vaping e-cigs. BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM PROOF ENOUGH????!!! NOTHING HAS WORKED FOR MANY TOBACCO SMOKERS, UNTIL THE E-CIG WAS INVENTED! PATCHES, GUM, NOTHING!!! but the e-cig works. About time smokers (even tobacco smokers) started getting aggressive (in voice) to fight for their rights too! After all, the smokers have paid billions of dollars in taxes to help keep this country running, moreso, then the non-smokers have!

FDA EXPOSED RE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES

The FDA Crusade Against E-Cigarettes
On July 22, 2009, the FDA released the results of laboratory tests of e-cigarettes, which were conducted by the Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. In a press release, the FDA said: “These tests indicate that these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens…” The FDA report can be downloaded here. For many years, I have investigated the cancer risks of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use. As I wrote in a recent post, the FDA has never regulated nicotine effectively, and the agency had previously signaled its intention to ban e-cigarettes. So while the agency’s new analysis of e-cigarettes comes as no surprise, it does undermine the assumption that the FDA bases it oversight activities purely on scientific principles.The FDA analyzed 18 cartridges from two e-cigarette manufacturers, Smoking Everywhere and Njoy (there are many other manufacturers). With respect to “carcinogens,” the agency looked at four tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) with very long chemical names; I’ll abbreviate the agents here as NNN, NNK, NAT and NAB. I have some experience with TSNAs, since I participated in a project with a scientist at the Swedish National Food Administration to measure the levels of these agents in smokeless tobacco products. Our research showed that TSNAs are present in most American tobacco products at extremely low levels, about 0.1 to 12 parts per million by weight. At this level of TSNAs, someone who puts 1 gram (about 1/28th of an ounce) of smokeless tobacco in his mouth is exposed to, at most, about 10 one-millionths of a gram of TSNAs. There is abundant scientific evidence that exposure at this minuscule level is not associated with ANY cancer in smokeless tobacco users.The FDA analyzed 14 products from Smoking Everywhere, but the agency only reported the TSNA levels for 7 of those products. Why did the FDA test only half of the company’s products for carcinogens? And how did they choose those products? There are some clues in the report. First, the products that weren’t tested simply had blank boxes in the results chart. A footnote says, “Open boxes indicate the sample was not available for testing.” Another note in the methods section admitted that “…not all sample lots were available for analysis…as they were consumed in other testing.” In other words, the FDA didn’t purchase enough of the products to conduct the testing in a systematic and scientific manner. Maybe it’s a budget problem. On the Smoking Everywhere website cartridges are $9.99 each. The FDA tested 3 out of 4 Njoy products for TSNAs. What the FDA didn’t test is even more important than what the agency tested. The report noted that the “Nicotrol Inhaler, 10mg cartridge was used as a control for some test methods.” That inhaler is a pharmaceutical nicotine product that is regulated by the FDA, but the agency didn’t test the product for TSNAs. This is a critical omission, because in 2006 a published research study revealed that pharmaceutical nicotine products contain TSNAs. In fact, it’s been known for almost 20 years that nicotine medications contain TSNAs. Why did the FDA analyze e-cigarettes for carcinogens, when there is no evidence the agency ever conducted carcinogen studies of products that they have regulated for over 20 years? Is it possible that the FDA approved medicines that contained TSNAs, but the agency is now disapproving e-cigarettes because they contain the same contaminants? To answer this important question, we have to know how high – or how low – the TSNA levels are in these products.Unfortunately, the agency did not report TSNA levels. Instead, it reported that TSNAs were either “Detected” or “Not Detected,” which is entirely inadequate. For hundreds of years, one of the basic tenets of medicine has been “the dose makes the poison.” Mere detection of a contaminant is meaningless; the critical question is: At what concentration is it present?So what does “Detected” mean in the FDA analysis? In other words, what was the lowest TSNA concentration that the test detected? As I noted earlier, many tobacco products have TSNA levels in the single-digit parts per million range, a level at which there is no scientific evidence that TSNAs are harmful. According to the report, the FDA used an analytic method published in 2008. The report notes that “the published method is quite sensitive for the TSNAs…” and it goes on to explain that the level of detection is 40 parts per TRILLION.The implications of this are astounding. Apparently, the FDA tested e-cigarette samples using a method that detects TSNAs at about 1 million times lower concentrations than are even possibly related to human health. In summary, the FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes. According to Dr. Murray Laugesen, a respected New Zealand researcher, “Simply banning e-cigarettes will simply consign thousands of e-smokers back to smoking tobacco and an early death.”The FDA and anti-tobacco extremists who support it should be held accountable for their prohibitionist actions. The FDA has a legitimate interest in two matters involving e-cigarettes: assuring that cartridges contain the advertised quantity of nicotine, and that they do not contain contaminants. I welcome the FDA to correct any errors in this critique. I attempted but was unable to reach the scientist who conducted the analyses.
Posted by Brad Rodu at 4:01 PM
Labels: carcinogens, e-cigarettes, FDA, Nicotrol, Njoy, pharmaceutical nicotine, smokeless tobacco, Smoking Everywhere, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, TSNA
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

FDA: Futzing and Diddling Around with Nicotine
Last month Congress passed, and President Obama signed legislation giving the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products. There is doubt about whether the FDA is the appropriate agency to oversee tobacco use among 45 million Americans. But one thing is certain: The agency has already botched the regulation of nicotine, the highly addictive but otherwise virtually harmless drug found in all tobacco products.Nicotine replacement medications for smokers have been around for over 20 years. Almost 15 years ago, the agency moved some forms from prescription to over-the-counter status, which typically makes medicines more affordable and more available to consumers. Not this time. Nicotine medications remain very expensive, they provide only a fraction of the nicotine available in cigarettes, and the FDA limits their use to only 10-12 weeks. In effect, the FDA is telling smokers: “Achieve abstinence (from tobacco and nicotine), or take your chances with cancer, heart attacks and emphysema.” Doesn’t the FDA know that it’s the smoke that kills? Nicotine is not the cause of any smoking-related disease. It’s about as safe as caffeine, another addictive substance enjoyed by millions of consumers of coffee, tea and cola drinks. The FDA has assured that nicotine medications are expensive and unsatisfying. First, they are exorbitantly expensive. Smokers struggle to afford $5 to $10 for a pack of cigarettes, so how can they fork out $30 to $50 for a box of nicotine gum or patches? Second, nicotine medications are extremely low-dose, so they don’t provide the nicotine spike that smokers get when they light up. Finally, smokers can only use nicotine medications for 10 to 12 weeks – a period that many find too short to enable them to quit smoking. With a regulatory framework like this, no wonder nicotine medications are successful for only about 7% who try them. For what other medications does the FDA accept a 93% failure rate? It is outrageous that the agency and, for the most part, the public health community are complacent with this dismal statistic. There are simple fixes for this mess, but the FDA has shown little interest. In 1995, I published an open letter in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to FDA commissioner David Kessler, urging him to make pharmaceutical nicotine products more available to smokers. The FDA did nothing over the next 12 years to make these medications more effective and more affordable. In February 2008, New York State Health Commissioner Richard Daines filed a petition requesting minor revisions in package labeling and sale of nicotine that would greatly expand consumer awareness and availability. The petition was supported by numerous tobacco research and policy experts and organizations. The FDA responded by… Well, they didn’t respond at all. It is hard to imagine how the agency could do worse than to not approve these simple changes. And now Congress has given the FDA regulatory authority over all tobacco products.The FDA signaled in April that it was about to make another mistake -- banning e-cigarettes, which are battery-powered devices delivering pure nicotine vaporized with propylene glycol (both of which are already approved for human consumption by the agency). The FDA rationale for the ban: “We don't want the public to perceive them as a safer alternative to cigarettes,” said FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle.Apparently, the FDA does not want the public to know that e-cigarettes are safer, which is depressing, coming from the federal agency dedicated to “protecting and promoting your health.” Tobacco users who are looking to the FDA for science-based regulation cannot be impressed. Compared with combustible products, e-cigarettes are definitely minimal risk. For more information, visit End Smoking New Zealand, which has conducted laboratory tests on e-cigarettes. The vast majority of e-cigarette users are former smokers. The FDA intends to ban a virtually risk-free nicotine delivery system, forcing users to resume cigarette smoking. This move is more bad news for those trying to quit, and it betrays President Obama’s inaugural pledge to “restore science to its rightful place.” Cigarette smoking will continue to be a leading cause of death in this country until the public health community and government agencies drop their anti-nicotine agenda and start helping, rather than punishing, smokers who are desperate to quit their deadly habit without quitting nicotine altogether.
Posted by Brad Rodu at 11:24 AM
Labels: e-cigarettes, FDA, nicotine
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Tobacco Prohibition in the U.S. Military

DOCTORS EXPOSE FDA

Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco Researchers Expose Double Standard in the FDA's Recent Study of Electronic Cigarettes and Challenge the FDA's Alarmist Attitude Toward the Devices
Contact: Thomas R. Kiklas, Director of Media, inLife LLC, 949-250-9600 ext 108, tkiklas@myinlife.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information and interviews, contact:

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

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

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

Thomas R. Kiklas
Director of Media
inLife LLC
Phone: 949-250-9600 x108
Email: tkiklas@myinlife.com

ABOUT US SERVICES RELEASES SEND RELEASES NEWS SOURCES RSS
© Standard Newswire 2009. All Rights Reserved. Legal Policy Contact Make a Payment