Are Electronic Cigarettes Really Safe?

[kitsune]

cigarettes and booze for all intents and purposes have been grandfathered in.

The government did learn a couple things with prohibition of alcohol. Some things you can't just outright ban--but you can keep taxing them.

[suzie971]

The only thing missing from thier articles is "We are being paid by Big Pharma and/or Tobacco lobbyists to say this".

You got that right! Think of the flip side too, how many more jobs could it create for Americans if they could start manufacturing, producing, etc... They just can't lose the support of the Big Tobacco industry! There are always going to be people out there that choose analogs because that is what they want. I don't think the tabacco industry would lose all that much, yeah there would probably be more people vaping, but I truly don't think everyone would stop the use of tobacco.

[Galex]

My question is about analogs and booze. Were they "grandfathered" in? Are they considered "natural" products like food suppliments (vitamins, etc.)? How can they claim nicotine is a drug and caffine is not? I'm so darn confused by all this!

Well, the power to regulate nicotine is a fairly new one to the FDA. They are just now getting around to rolling out some of the newer restrictions (no flavors other than menthol, new and disturbing warnings on cigarette packages, etc.). Alcohol is its own little world it seems. Lots of restrictions but also lots of leeway.

Lets hope they learned something from prohibition. You can't legislate morality. People are going to do bad things to themselves no matter what kinds of laws you put in place to stop them. It's ironic to me that in the midst of all this we seem to be on the cusp of legalizing that *other* thing that people like to smoke (I will go no further with that statement so as not to break any rules).

And lets not forget that alcohol and tobacco are both revenue generators right now. Can't get in the way of funding insurance for children and so forth. Some friends of mine and I did a 'smoke for the children' spoof ad when they were discussing that piece of nonsense.

Anyway, what a great thread this has turned out to be. Thanks to everyone for bringing a diverse set of opinions to bear on such a complex and emotional issue -- this really is a great community of folks.

[kitsune]

With alcohol vs smoking--Politicians still drink--don't want to make alcohol seem too bad. It is still legal to advertise all these cool alcohol products on TV (geared toward the young)--cigarettes have not been able to advertise on TV for a couple decades

Its all about what is socially acceptable and whatever is on the politically correct agenda

as a nurse I see way more alcohol related disease, injury (self and others)--not in anyway saying smoking is better. I just can't remember the last time I had one to many cigarettes and took out an entire family.

OK rant over--sorry, pet peeve. alcohol good, smoking bad--go figure--ok, now rant over(maybe)

[nana]

With alcohol vs smoking--Politicians still drink--don't want to make alcohol seem too bad. It is still legal to advertise all these cool alcohol products on TV (geared toward the young)--cigarettes have not been able to advertise on TV for a couple decades

Its all about what is socially acceptable and whatever is on the politically correct agenda

as a nurse I see way more alcohol related disease, injury (self and others)--not in anyway saying smoking is better. I just can't remember the last time I had one to many cigarettes and took out an entire family.

OK rant over--sorry, pet peeve. alcohol good, smoking bad--go figure--ok, now rant over(maybe)

"One too many cigarettes", LOL, I love that one, kitsune. I agree with you completely. I've said that for years. They make such a big deal about one and not the other and yet someone who has had too much to drink and do a whole lot more damage than a person who has had too much too smoke. I just liked the way you said it better.

Of course they do complain about drunk drivers. They don't want to blame the drunk driver for anything, but instead blame someone who "let" him drive drunk, or "let" him drink too much. Now, I in no way whatsoever would make any excuses for a drunk driver, but I remember seeing once that 25% (or some such number) of all fatal accidents were caused by drunk drivers. They were making a very big deal about it and wanting to stop it, etc. You know what I thought? Hmmm, then are the other 75% of the fatal accidents caused by idiots? And should we get them off the road, too? I mean, shouldn't we get the 75% off the road first, then take care of that smaller 25%? It's just how I look at things.

[keenan]

@ Nana and kitsune - once again, great minds think alike. If anyone has any doubt that alcohol related traffic accidents are FAR worse than cigarettes, I recommend they ride a shift with an EMT until they respond to one. Hate to bring everyone down, but the WORST call I ever responded to was an accident where a drunk driver plowed into a station wagon carrying a family froma night of Christmas shopping. 3 children, 2 adult females, dead. The drunk was standing by his vehicle, not a scratch on him. ( Drunks turn to rubber during an accident due to slow reflexes ). Now, this guys life is clearly over because of a stupid decision, and a family is gone forever. As some of you may know, I come from a family of cops. My cousin was a New York State Trooper who was hit head on by a drunk driver on 1981. Both he and his partner were killed instantly. My cousin left a wife and 2 children. The irony, the drunk that hit them was a good friend of my cousin. I believe he is still in jail. I apologize. I have no horror stories for cigarette related accidents Ive responded to. Now, for the long term health problems caused by smoking, my view is, thats MY choice to do so if I wish and it affects ME. And no matter HOW much I smoke, Im not gonna take a family out with me. Unless Im havin a few gin and tonics with my cig.

[spoolinst]

I know I'll get crucified for this, but here goes. Before I say anything else, let me say that I don't want the newborn vaping industry to have anything bad happen to it. This experience has been life-changing for me and I have no intention of stopping. I'm happy to be a human guinea pig to discover the long-term effects of vaping.

That said, I actually understand where the FDA is coming from on a couple of points. First, on the effects of vaping long-term. Simply put, we don't know. To my knowledge, nobody has been inhaling propylene glycol on a daily basis in large quantities for enough time for the long-term health effects to be understood. Sure it's used in inhalers for asthma, sure it's used as a food additive. But this is different. Think about how much you vape on a daily basis. I'm willing to be that for most of us its way more than a few puffs from an asthma inhaler on a daily basis or whatever amount you would get from eating it. And yes, there was a study done in the 1940s that showed no ill effects. In mice. For 6 months. We still don't really know what happens to humans who use this heavily over long periods of time. It may leave things that build up in some of our organs, it may do a lot of things, good or bad.

That's what the FDA is saying: they don't KNOW the effects. And unfortunately for us, that means they have to err on the side of caution. They are charged with trying as best they can to keep our food supply and pharmaceutical industries in check. So in some sense, they can't just shrug their shoulders and say 'meh, who knows if it's safe? we don't care.' No, it's not perfect. No, they aren't saints. But I for one am not unhappy they are around. If you think that there isn't a need for someone to keep these industries in check, I invite you to go live in China for a while. Yep, the FDA has completely screwed the pooch on some things and has failed to protect the public. But I like to think that they are a necessary evil. I don't trust big business any more than I trust politicians. That being said, I sure as hell hope they don't try to ban these completely, but rather try to get a study underway to understand the true health effects of this stuff.

Second, and I know that folks won't like this either, but just because a juice seller says that there's only a few ingredients doesn't mean there aren't more. Look at the melamine scare in baby formula. Add to that the toxic nature of nicotine and you have a recipe for disaster as far as the FDA is concerned. I think that regulation, while not desirable, is going to be another necessary evil.

On the 'gateway' device, I think the FDA is completely wrongheaded and stupid and is listening too much to the anti-smoking lobby, who seems hellbent on eradicating the existence of nicotine. Then there are the asshat politicians who want to look good kicking a vice industry while it's down. The argument of whether or not this will create more analog smokers is beyond ridiculous and I wish we had the financial muscle to shut the anti-smoking lobby out of the mix. But alas we don't.

I recognize that this issue affects many of you in very personal, even financial ways (for those of you who are entrepreneurs). I'm not blind to the consequences that over-regulation might have. I don't wish anyone ill or want anything bad to happen. I'm just saying that as a realist, given the realities of what the FDA is and what it's charged with doing, I can see how the current situation has come about. I don't necessarily agree with it. I don't trust bureaucrats to make the best choices. But I'm also really confident in the spirit of innovation that abounds in this new industry and I have no doubt that we'll find a way to persist somehow, some way.

You can hate my opinions all you like, all I ask is that you not hate *me* for having them. I completely understand those who are scared, angry and outraged and I'm not going to argue with anyone about that. I just think that if we understand where our opponents are coming from, we can find ways to work with (or sometimes around) them.

you make some very valid points i never thought of.