I just came across this article, claiming that even nicotine-free e-liquids contain lung-harming substances like acrolein:
[URL='http://lungcancernewstoday.com/2015/06/08/nicotine-free-e-cigarette-vapor-also-damages-lung-cells/']Nicotine-Free E-Cigarette Vapor Also Damages Lung Cells Lung Cancer News Today[/URL]
What I hate about articles such as these is that they're almost always posted with some scary headline and usually end up saying there isn't a proper research into topic or they're awaiting further investigations.
Anyhow, can anyone comment on what 'acrolein' is? I've heard of formaldehyde being created when vaping on high wattage, but this is the first time I hear of acrolein.
If you’re from the United States or probably any Western country, you will know how quickly our culture can go from one extreme position to the next on just about any issue. Around 25-30 years ago, nicotine went somewhat suddenly from being a socially acceptable vice that could be done in nearly every public place by almost anyone to a highly stigmatized addiction that turned millions of smokers into second-class citizens. Unfortunately, since the most common delivery of nicotine had been through traditional cigarettes that have been lethal for so many people including both my grandfathers, the stigma behind nicotine has persisted into the era of vaping. And it doesn’t help that the practice “looks like” smoking.
However, in and of itself nicotine is not dangerous. It occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables, and does not cause lung cancer. It’s a drug, just like any substance or activity that releases dopamine in the brain. I’m personally much more concerned about the consumption of highly-caffeinated, high-sugar drinks, which are not age restricted, “flavor” restricted, and aren’t taxed to death. I’m also much more concerned about the proliferation of flavored beer and spirits in the last couple decades, which have minimal restriction on advertising and haven’t been scrutinized by the FDA to any degree comparable to JUUL or the e-cigarette industry in general. And while those substances can be very addictive, they are often encouraged in social settings, can be “enjoyed in moderation”, and aren’t considered an epidemic. Without getting too political, I’m entirely convinced that progressives would rather have 400,000 smokers continue to die each year because they didn’t switch to vaping than a new generation take up a significantly less harmful habit.
hey guys.
as we all know the vaping industry hits on some interesting topics in harm reduction. we are seeing the reality of regulation more and more these days and with that comes a whole new wave of statistics and reasons for and against advocacy of this industry. one thing that i have noticed is that while addressing various concerns as vaping gains popularity is the subject of where minors lie. anticipating regulation it became important to not grant minors access to this technology. more and more often an article will come out admitting the advantages of vaping and the benefits of placing some restrictions on vaping that are consistent with tobacco regulations. these articles admit that as popularity of vaping rises that the number of adolescent smokers is also decreasing, but adolescents who have tried vaping rises.
to me this isn't that bad? i don't believe that nicotine liquid should be available to minors. if a teen is thinking about picking up a disposable nicotine free e-cig, isn't that just one less teen trying to get a cigarette? if anything i believe that it is definitely preferable that this technology be available to a minor that is seriously considering smoking. again, e-cigs are proving to be beneficial to asthmatic users. does no one remember the e-cigs that were produced to sate appetites for sweets and touted as a weight loss aid?
i am seeing this ammendment being made in otherwise positive articles about vaping. it takes me right back to being 16 when i accompanied a younger friend trying to buy nicorette so he could quit smoking. after a very short conversation with the pharmacist he refused to sell the gum to my friend. his response is that he could just get his mom to buy the quit smoking aid like she bought his cigarettes.
i know it is a slippery slope and i would definitely not freely offer nicotine free e-cigs to minors, but isn't the decline in teen smoking worth it?
Senate eyes e-cigarette crackdown
Here is the scariest part of the article. “Refillable cartridges are an invitation to hazardous concoctions, and we need to get them off the market too.”
They want to get rid of everything other than disposable carts in tobacco flavor. Plus they want to tax them the rate of cigarettes. The whole thing is BS. I am so angry right now.
I was sort of counting on them for odds and ends once the FDA rules kick in in May, or if there are laws passed between now and then.... but it looks like they will be shut down:
China Effectively Bans Online Sales of E-Cigarettes
China Bans Online Sales of E-Cigarettes
I have several fasttech and several vaporl orders that have not shipped yet too.
EDIT: Although the article does say "“There is no law and regulation in China that forbids the online sale of e-cigarette yet,” said Ou Junbiao, head of the Electronic Cigarette Industry Committee of China. "
EDIT #2: vaporl does have a US warehouse too though, although oddly enough the shipping is cheaper from Hong Kong.
So I have been coming on here and reading posts from people like say, in Washington State who are desperately trying to come up with something vapable after the flavor bans came crashing down, and I went on a pretty serious letter writing campaign in response. Here is the answer I got:
"Thank you for writing me regarding your thoughts on banning smoke-free alternatives to combustible tobacco. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns.
The Trump Administration recently announced plans to ban the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes as officials in Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to investigate more than 450 health cases, including six deaths, related to e-cigarette use. According to HHS Secretary Alex Azar, the FDA intends to introduce a policy that will remove the sale of all flavored e-cigarette flavors except tobacco, until otherwise specified.
I understand that this is an important issue for parents and consumers of e-cigarettes in our district. As your Representative, I will continue to monitor this situation as it develops and will keep your thoughts in mind if any legislative action is taken on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Again, thank you for contacting my office about this important issue. If you would like to receive regular updates on this and other matters, please visit my website (www.demings.house.gov/) to sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely,
Val Butler Demings
Member of Congress"
The part that instantly grabbed my attention was this:
FDA intends to introduce a policy that will remove the sale of all flavored e-cigarette flavors except tobacco, until otherwise specified.
Is this going to happen ahead of the deeming regulations? Is the FDA going to come up behind us and slip this over our heads while we aren't looking? And while vaping is coming under a full frontal assault, tobacco companies are laughing as they continue to kill 1200 people a day - because the spotlight ain't on them anymore.
I was pretty upset with the wired article and wrote a lengthy response for my blog. Thought I'd share.
[h=2]Wired: http://www. wired. com/2015/04/war-vapings-health-risks-getting-dirty/"
The War Over Vaping’s Health Risks Is Getting Dirty“ - My Response to this Misleading Article[/h]I was really bothered by how misleading this article was, so I’m gonna break it down.
Before I begin, a clarification: There are many issues regarding ecig or “vaporizer” usage, and on many of them, there’s no disagreement between anti-vapers and pro-vapers. For instance, both groups do not want children getting ecigs. However, many people - like in this wired article - muddle a bunch of the issues together, so I’ll be teasing them apart.
For nicotine enthusiasts, 2015 will be remembered as part of a golden era. Less than 10 years after they were introduced in the United States, e-cigarettes have gone relatively unregulated by health agencies, with companies and users making their own rules in a nicotine-laced Wild West. E-cigarette companies have been advertising their products to adults and children alike, claiming to help smokers quit while simultaneously promoting lollipop-flavored liquids…
Reminiscent of glamorous smoking ads of the last century, many of the ads feature celebrity endorsements; in a Blu ad, Jenny McCarthy flirts with the camera while rejoicing that she can now smoke without scaring guys away with her smell. And many of them seem shockingly child-centric…
1. Advertising to adults: This is a legitimate question. Personally, I’m leaning toward lighter regulations for ecig ads bc numerous studies have shown they are much safer than cigarettes (American Heart Association, x, x, x, x, x ) and can act as an effecting smoking cessation aid, though they are not yet approved for that purpose (American Heart Association, x, x ). But again, a legitimate question.
2. Advertising to kids: No-one wants that. Furthermore, no-one has done that! When critics like the author of the wired article allege that is happening, they almost always are referring to the non-tobacco flavors offered. However, the reason sweet, fruity, and candy flavors are offered is because they are extremely popular amongst adult vapers (x, x). Saying they’re marketed to children is like saying sweet alcoholic drinks are marketed for children because all adults would obviously prefer bourbon. It’s ludicrous. Adults like sweet flavors too.
2b. On a related note: Some have been concerned that ecigs may increase teen use of cigarettes, but the evidence thus far says otherwise. (x, x).
…Last week, the California Department of Public Health launched a anti-vaping campaign called Still Blowing Smoke. And in January, the San Francisco Department of Health launched #CurbIt, pointing out the dangers of e-cigs and their brazen plays to hook kids while warning residents that vaping is only allowed in the same places as smoking.
There’s plenty of evidence behind the campaigns’ claims—studies that link e-cigs to asthma, lung inflammation, MRSA infection risk and exposure to harmful chemicals. But with scant data on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes and their usefulness as a quitting tool, the ads use a number of classic psychological strategies to help beat back the ire of pro-vapers…
3. The Still Blowing Smoke ads were themselves blowing smoke. I’d like to discuss three of their main tv ads.
3a. One suggested that ecigs are marketed for kids bc of the flavors, as discussed above.
3b. Another suggested (or rather, alleges) that vaping is a “Big Tobacco” conspiracy! While it’s true that Big Tobacco has bought in to some ecig production, the vast majority of vape businesses are small businesses, such as the brick-and-mortar “vape shops” that are emerging. Perhaps more importantly, this is guilt by association. If Big Tobacco owned Chantix, a popular smoking cessation aid, would that automatically mean it’s evil? And unlike the vast, vast majority of small vape businesses, Big Tobacco has an incentive to make cigs fail: Users are more likely to continue smoking! (Not to mention the very impressive revenue that states gain from tobacco sales, which vaping threatens. x, x)
3c. Finally, they aired a commercial with a small toddler reaching for a vape, presenting that as a risk. Which it is, of course - just like with any other chemical left around the house, be it alcohol, cleaning supplies, or whatever! That isn’t a vaping issue; it’s a parenting issue.
More info on those ads here.
4. The #CurbIt campaign (x) similarly suggests that vapes are part of a Big Tobacco conspiracy and marketed to children (sigh).
4a.What bothered me most was the phrasing they used in one particular ad: “We know e-cigarettes are harmful, just like cigarettes.” While one could argue that it merely meant, “ecigs are also harmful”, it seems to me to be implying that they are just as harmful, which is patently false.
4b. And as others have pointed out: One is likely inhaling more toxic fumes from the curb than from vaping!
4c. Of course, that does leave the question of second-hand-vape exposure, which #CurbIt also alerts the public to. However, the evidence for second-hand vpe exposure is still very thin, with many experts thinking it has a minimal effect if any. (x, x ).
5. To be sure, no-one thinks that vaporizers are completely harmless. Almost nothing is! The question is relative harm (as well as harm-reduction). Are ecigs bad for asthmatics - well, how bad? Certainly they’re better than cigarettes. Might ecigs cause some lung inflammation? Very possibly, but are we going to outlaw every activity or product poses any amount of tissue inflammation?! Clearly that’s an absurd approach. We need to look at overall health, relative health, and common standards in other areas. (For instance, caffeine is addictive, but the public has no qualms with allowing people to use it.)
6. I’ll add that in addition to the lack of studies demonstrating long-term adverse affects, the research on short-term affects are mixed, with many indicating that it is very safe in general, and particularly in contrast to cigarettes.
One CDC ad relies on anecdotal evidence to make its point. It features a story from an e-cigarette user, a 35-year-old wife and mother named Kristy from Tennessee who says she started smoking e-cigarettes hoping to quit combustible cigarettes. Instead, she began to smoke both, until her lung collapsed. The American Vaping Association reportedly called the ad “patently dishonest,” saying that it implies vaping led to lung disease, when in reality Kristy had gone back to smoking cigarettes alone in the months before her lung collapsed. California’s anti-vaping campaign lists toxins that humans once thought were safe—arsenic-laced powdered wigs, radium therapy, and of course cigarettes—and compares them to e-cigs, using a deceptive associative tactic that we’ve called out before.
7. This is one of the few points where the piece describes one obvious instance of misleading advertising - and the vaping community’s obvious and necessary response to such deception. (And for what it’s worth, there are thousands and thousands of people who credit ecigs with saving their lives #VapingSavedMyLife). But even here, the article’s authors don’t really take the anti-vaping activists to task for it. In fact, they almost seem to endorse that very same tactic:
The problem is, as in the early days of campaigns against cigarettes, there isn’t definitive evidence that e-cigarettes cause long-term harm—a point that pro-vapers will be quick to remind you of. But there also isn’t definitive evidence that they’re safe. And there are many good reasons to assume they’ll be found in time to increase cancer and heart and lung disease.
The Wired article doesn’t explain what those reasons are… just that it’s a good assumption! (I guess they also think they’re like arsenic-laced powdered wigs.)
What firm science there is to rest on is fairly obvious: E-cigarettes are almost certainly less toxic and carcinogenic than regular cigarettes. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not a health hazard. “We already know you’re breathing in a lot of toxic chemicals, which is bad,” says Glantz. “You’re breathing in a lot of toxic particles, which is bad. You’re taking in nicotine, which is bad. A cigarette is by far and away the most dangerous consumer product ever invented. So to say it’s not as bad as a cigarette is not saying very much.”
8. This was, to me, perhaps the most balanced paragraph in the article, but even here I’d challenge some aspects. In essence, of course breathing anything other than air isn’t going to be good for you, but it’s a matter of degree for the general public, and relative health for smokers. This might be a good time to mention that the studies thus far indicate that 99% of vapers are smokers or ex-smokers (x, x ). That is, they switched from “the most dangerous consumer product ever invented” to something less harmful, perhaps much, much less harmful, for at least part of the time.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence, then, public health agencies have to continue to play a little dirty themselves to get citizens to pay attention. In a couple of years, researchers will begin to do association studies to pull out long-term health effects. Until that science rolls in, the, prepare to sit back and enjoy the show. These two camps will be hashing it out for a while.
9. This another area where I disagree: If there is a lack of evidence, don’t treat it like a deadly substance. If the evidence suggests that it’s getting many people off of a horribly injurious habit, then definitely don’t treat it like a deadly substance.
All in all, very disappointed in the article. It basically boasted propaganda for a cause that may further harm millions. It presents very little actual information, and seems to ignore the information which extols the virtues of vaping over smoking. To be sure, we need more studies, as many of the study’s done so far have been faulty (like the popularized “formaldehyde” study - x) or contain a conflict of interest. Still, much of the evidence thus far is positive, and legislating as though it were negative is unfair to vapers and the millions suffering from tobacco cigarette addiction.
All Wired really seemed to care about discussing is the social media attention the debate is getting - and probably just trying to cash in on that by stirring the pot.
P.s. Of Interest: List of studies related to ecigs and vaping. (x)
I just got an email from Web MD (I get them on various topics almost daily) dealing with smoking cessation. While the main article didn't mention e-cigarettes, there was a link to another article at the bottom of the page which did:
E-Cigarettes: Health and Safety Issues
Seemed fairly reasonable to me.
And so it begins......
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Wednesday it plans to ban the sale of non-tobacco-flavored electronic cigarettes amid a vaping crisis.
“The Trump Administration is making it clear that we intend to clear the market of flavored e-cigarettes to reverse the deeply concerning epidemic of youth e-cigarette use that is impacting children, families, schools and communities,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement. “We will not stand idly by as these products become an on-ramp to combustible cigarettes or nicotine addiction for a generation of youth.”
Michigan became the first state to prohibit sales of most flavored e-cigarettes last week in a bold move to curb the underage vaping epidemic. The ban, which will take effect in a few weeks, will cover both online and in-store sales of all e-cigarette flavors except tobacco.
Trump administration plans to ban sale of flavored electronic cigarettes