The arguments against e-cigarettes
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:25 On Monday Vancouver City Council voted to ban the use of all tobacco products in city parks.
The ban extends to e-cigarettes and I've been trying to find out why. According to an article I have just read online, the principal arguments are:
1. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine to the smoker in a vapor form and nicotine is highly addictive
2. They are unregulated and have not been sufficiently tested for safety
3. Lack of regulation and quality control means the amount of nicotine in each drag of an e-cigarette is inconsistent
4. Tests by the US Food and Drug Administration show that e-cigarettes contain harmful chemicals such as diethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze that’s toxic to humans and is banned in food and drugs
5. There were also detectable levels of a known carcinogen called nitrosamine and other toxic chemicals that users could potentially inhale
6. Health experts have expressed concern that e-cigarettes are marketed toward young people since the devices come in pink, gold or blue with flavours such as chocolate and bubble gum and there is no health warning
7. Claims that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit are unsubstantiated
8. Even if they do help smokers to quit, e-cigarettes could entice young people to start smoking
See: Are e-cigarettes safe? (Medical Discovery News)
I have also heard it said that an e-cigarette can look, at a distance, like a real cigarette and this could alarm non-smokers who might think that they are in danger of being exposed (allegedly) to thousands of cancer-causing chemicals (aka "secondhand smoke") ...
Yes, it's official: e-cigarettes can scare you to death.
See also: The e-cigarette debate (Boston Globe) and Tobacco haters, kick your filthy habit (Spiked)
Reader Comments (18)
You forgot number 9
e-cigs make you grow two heads and if you start smoking when there's an R in the month - then three heads appear.
You might well joke John, but all this could be true - haven't you just read that smoking can make women's nipples fall off?
Yes I am not joking, that is the latest find of Coco the Clown in the USA (or someone like that)
What is really worrying here, is if women's nipples can fall off, think what could happen to men's b***s?
A big problem for the authorities is that ecigs and cigs look the same to cctv. So what do they do when their cameras catch someone smoking on, for example, the platform of a London overgound train station? Ecigs cause them so much trouble in so many different ways. A ban won't work. They leave no smell. People can use them anywhere they can't be seen. Once you've got one, all you need is nicotine solution. Customs can't look at every package coming into the country.
"think what could happen to men's b***s?"
I, somehow, have the impression that they are already in short supply in the present male population!
Why are we surprised that e-cigs will be banned? We know this is little to do with health.
Does anyone know if you can still buy those "sweet cigarettes" that we use to buy as kids?
What on earth would Mr Bossy do if he saw people on stations etc, smoking/sucking those?
And while they are considering banning something because it resembles something else - why don't they ban talcom powder as we all know how much that resmbles cocain? Or toy guns perhaps?
Only no.8 'justifies' banning e-cigs in Vancover's parks, the others are to do with the safety to the users themselves.
Incidentally, NRT inhalers deliver nicotine in a vapour form - are they banning them? I don't believe that NRT has been tested for safety either. If an e-cig is not an aid to quitting then neither is an NRT inhaler.
And if a reason is that Other People should not be exposed to the SIGHT of someone mimicking the act of smoking then we might as well all be rounded up and sent off to the camps.
Vancouver has a huge drug problem. It seems as if shooting up in Stanley Park will be less unacceptable than smoking.
Joyce, don't even mention the "camp" word.
That is, after all, "the next logical step."
Some thoughts on their reasons.
1. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine to the smoker in a vapor form and nicotine is highly addictive
Some e-cigs contain zero nic, completely negating this argument. There has also been some debate over the 'addictive' nature of nicotine as used in e-cigs.
2. They are unregulated and have not been sufficiently tested for safety.
They are regulated as general products in the UK. How do they compare, in terms of safety to champix for example? There is nothing to stop Health Canada from testing them.
3. Lack of regulation and quality control means the amount of nicotine in each drag of an e-cigarette is inconsistent.
What has this got to do with the price of peas?
4. Tests by the US Food and Drug Administration show that e-cigarettes contain harmful chemicals such as diethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze that’s toxic to humans and is banned in food and drugs
A misrepresentation. E-cigs do not contain diethylene glycol. A single cartridge was found to contain DG by the FDA. This seems to have been a quality control issue. The FDA were not able to produce, in court, any evidence that e-cigs were harmful.
5. There were also detectable levels of a known carcinogen called nitrosamine and other toxic chemicals that users could potentially inhale
Nitrosamines are present at the same levels as NRTs which are considered safe. What other toxic chemicals are they refering to?
6. Health experts have expressed concern that e-cigarettes are marketed toward young people since the devices come in pink, gold or blue with flavours such as chocolate and bubble gum and there is no health warnings
There is no evidence that e-cigs are marketted towards young people. Some adults like chocolate flavour.
7. Claims that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit are unsubstantiated
There have been limited studies that show e-cigs can help smokers quit if that is what they want to do. Dr Siegel (Boston) reviewed the studies and agreed they had merit.
8. Even if they do help smokers to quit, e-cigarettes could entice young people to start smoking
There is no evidence for this. Cigarettes are freely available and initialy cheaper. It is more likely young people would go directly to cigarettes. This also seems to be the same concern as #6.
There is scant (if any?) evidence for harm from SHS in parks let alone vapour from an e-cig.
What were their reasons for banning Snus in the park? No chance of any SHS at all there.
This is not about health.
And...
I have also heard it said that an e-cigarette can look, at a distance, like a real cigarette and this could alarm non-smokers who might think that they are in danger of being exposed (allegedly) to thousands of cancer-causing chemicals (aka "secondhand smoke") ...
Many e-cigs available today look nothing like a cigarette. The Box mods especialy so.
There is no safe form of tobacco use. All forms contain nicotine and cause addiction and health problems
Nicotine dependence is an addiction to tobacco products caused by the drug nicotine.
Just like the nicotine scare that's running around ecf? How long before someone is killed from this poison
Nicotine labeled.....Nicotine determined
100 mg....48 mg
100 mg....121 mg
100 mg....272 mg
48 mg....78 mg
36 mg....51 mg
48 mg....59 mg
100 mg....98 mg
A product that is testing at at 272 mg/ml and labeled at 100 mg/ml is more than dangerous, it could be deadly.
They hide behind "harm reduction " sites like (Consumer Addicts Should Advocate Addiction) so it looks like it's safe to be addicted to nicotine so they can addict for people..... Therefore more money for them to make.
Sites like this should be banned along with electronic cigarettes... The only thing this "harm reduction " site is trying to do is addict your kids and families to nicotine. When members of this "harm reduction " site sell ecig accessories and can profit from people being addicted to nicotine its NO longer a "harm reduction " site it's a ecig salesman "woman " hiding behind "harm reduction "
kids are using prepaid credit cards and personal bank accounts to sustain their NicFits. There's much provided evidence of multiple sales to underage children of the substance Nicotine. These illegal sales are increasing from more than one internet vendor.
"These sellers are not accounting for any ones safety especially the kids." They have no way of proving the ages of buyers when accepting any purchases "Via the internet" for Nicotine eJuice or any drug delivery devices associated with it.
@Electricman
I admit to being a lot ignorant on the subject of e-cigs but do they really count as tobacco use? I would have thought it possible to produce a tobacco free version.
If the problem is production consistency then why not simply impose quality standards in the same way that we do with other products?
Surely there is more chance of irregular dosing using nicotine gum for example where release rates depend on how many how hard and how fast the user chews.
I take it that you also have an issue with NRT products as you seem to be saying that being addicted to nicotine is very dangerous.
I will refer you to The Rest of the Story
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/12/medical-scientists-to-smokers-keep.html
Electricman is quoting from what seems to be an online newspaper call cmvlive.com which stands for 'Caribbean Media Vision'. The article in question is called 'How Electronic Cigarettes Can Help Smokers'. The site seems to be a very small, private advertising site essentially. I guess this from their charge for adverts which is only 20$. All the articles seem to be written by 'guestauthor'. Reading between the lines, advertisers can contribute to 'article contents'. So it looks as if this article has been contributed by someone advocating electronic cigarettes, except that there are no actual adverts for any particular make. But here is a very interesting thing - at the top of the article is a small ad from 'www.quitsmoking.uk.com' and another down the side from 'Take7stepsOut.uk.com'!!!! So who is advocating electronic cigarettes? The only commenter on the article is Electricman.
Electricman says "" 'They hide behind "harm reduction " sites like (Consumer Addicts Should Advocate Addiction)"" I googled 'Consumer Addicts............' and found that the only reference to that 'site (casaa, as he calls it)' is a phrase he used in his comment on cmvlive.com. He is quoting himself!
I have come to the conclusion that Electricman is a complete fraud. A small sign of this is his sentence: Are e-cigs more addictive than tobacco cigarettes? Again, no one knows yet. The product is too new, and too few people have used it to date. A full blown epidemiology study is required. "Too few people have used it to date," he says, and yet he advocates a 'full blown epi study'! And, as usual, the straw man argument 'are ecigs more addictive than tobacco'.
The man's a crook.
@Junican
I think CASAA is a dig at and reference to the 'The Consumer Advocates For Smoke-Free Alternatives Association', This is a US group which came about when members of the ECF (Electronic Cigarrette Forum) got together to fight bans. CASAA
Thanks for that, west2. I must admit that I did not search very far.
I have looked at the site. It all seems to be pretty harmless. I looked at several articles. Although comments were invited, none of them had any comments, so we can assume that Electricman is not really that interested.
Clearly a troll.
Who knows what other products would be banned next...as the popularity of e-cigarettes increases so as the desire to ban it..sigh.
Vape away one and all, they are banning Tobacco products. This is vapor not tobacco. the only thing in common is nicotine.