vaping.tumblr.com

home
about me
leave a comment

This blog supports:
AEMSA | CASAA

Proud member of:
E-Cig Forums

Important Links:
Scientific Research
1 week ago #vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

This article shares some interesting facts (FACTS!) about propylene glycol which a lot of ecig users know, but which the anti-ecig folks always seem to overlook, that being that PG has been used for well over 50 years as an AIR SANITIZER in hospitals, food establishments, and other places due to its antibacterial and antiviral properties.

1 week ago 1 note#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes
tarnishedwords:

grimmgreenindustries:

Just gotta rant sometimes
Overall I try to be a positive person.  Whether that be here, or in my normal day to day life.  I’m an optimist and I do believe that people have the overwhelming ability to do good things. 
With that said.  Here is a rantI subscribe to many news outlets, with keywords like VAPING or ECIGS or ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES.  I like to know what is going on in the world of vaping.  Whether that is positive, negative or otherwise. 
One word i’m sick to death of hearing is “HIP”  ”ecigs are a hip alternative”  ”Vapers are trying to be hip, but is it safe?”  ”Hip new trend of vaping” HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP.  
Let me tell you what we are not.  We are NOT trying to be hip, or trendy or cool.  I’ve personally never been HIP, TRENDY, or COOL, nor do I aspire to be HIP, TRENDY or COOL.  I’m certainly not crossing my fingers that vaping will finally let me attain the status of “Hip”  in the eyes of the general public. 
I’ll tell you what we ARE though.  We are adults trying our damnedest  to get away from tobacco.  We are part of a community, a support group, a family.  We have found an amazing tool to help us in our journey. That tool is a battery, an atomizer, and some liquid.  
I don’t want to be “hip” I don’t want to be “cool”  I don’t want to drown children in barrels of poison.  I simply don’t want to smoke.  And you mainstream media, you don’t want to make that easy for me. 
-Grimm
::DISCLAIMER::the views and opinions on GrimmGreen.com are solely those of GrimmGreen himself and not necessarily those of the vape community as a whole. 

I had no idea ecigs were hip or cool.  I thought they were considered a desperate last resort on the part of us people who are too stupid to know smoking is bad for you and do it anyway.
And are dumb enough to enjoy it and not really want to quit an addiction, when it’s fairly well known that being addicted to a thing is considered bad.  
I don’t really care if people consider cool or uncool.  All I know is that I’ve quit smoking tobacco and that’s good for me.  I know that the chemicals in Ecigs are considered safe and some have been (in the case of propylene glycol) since 1948.
This too, shall pass, and the nanny state (both parties, for those of you who want to tell me it’s the other side) will tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body again.
Then again, in 20 years (or more.  or less.) a study might come out telling me that ecigs will kill me just as nastily as tobacco would have.
And that’s okay.  Because at least I tried to get away from something I know is harmful by trying something I was fairly sure was less harmful.  At least I did what I could to deal with an addiction I didn’t know how to break (and wasn’t sure I wanted to).  
I’d rather be a guy who tried and died than a guy who just gave up and accepted that he was slowly killing himself.
I may not be strong enough or have enough desire to break my nicotine habit, but at least I tried to use something that I’m fairly sure won’t poison me and everyone I know.  
As for the risk?  People take risks all the time.  Crash diets.  Pills to change their metabolism.  Getting blind drunk.  A hundred thousand ways to hurt yourself, poison yourself and probably hurt others in the process, but there is less negative media coverage given to those things than is being given to ecigs.  Of course, not too many years ago, there were lots of news stories about why it was unhealthy to drink at all (now debunked) and why diet pills will kill you and make you fatter (dunno if this one is still true or not), how caffeine is terrible for you (now debunked) and how drinking tap water will mutate you into a Ninja Turtle (still holding out hope).
I’m going to stick with ecigs and keep hoping that I have found the gateway to beating my addiction - or, at the very least, get away from the addictive substance I know is a deadly poison.
Judge me if you will.  I’m okay with that.

tarnishedwords:

grimmgreenindustries:

Just gotta rant sometimes

Overall I try to be a positive person.  Whether that be here, or in my normal day to day life.  I’m an optimist and I do believe that people have the overwhelming ability to do good things. 

With that said.  Here is a rant

I subscribe to many news outlets, with keywords like VAPING or ECIGS or ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES.  I like to know what is going on in the world of vaping.  Whether that is positive, negative or otherwise. 

One word i’m sick to death of hearing is “HIP”  ”ecigs are a hip alternative”  ”Vapers are trying to be hip, but is it safe?”  ”Hip new trend of vaping” HIP HIP HIP HIP HIP.  

Let me tell you what we are not.  We are NOT trying to be hip, or trendy or cool.  I’ve personally never been HIP, TRENDY, or COOL, nor do I aspire to be HIP, TRENDY or COOL.  I’m certainly not crossing my fingers that vaping will finally let me attain the status of “Hip”  in the eyes of the general public. 

I’ll tell you what we ARE though.  We are adults trying our damnedest  to get away from tobacco.  We are part of a community, a support group, a family.  We have found an amazing tool to help us in our journey. That tool is a battery, an atomizer, and some liquid.  

I don’t want to be “hip” I don’t want to be “cool”  I don’t want to drown children in barrels of poison.  I simply don’t want to smoke.  And you mainstream media, you don’t want to make that easy for me. 

-Grimm

::DISCLAIMER::
the views and opinions on GrimmGreen.com are solely those of GrimmGreen himself and not necessarily those of the vape community as a whole. 

I had no idea ecigs were hip or cool.  I thought they were considered a desperate last resort on the part of us people who are too stupid to know smoking is bad for you and do it anyway.

And are dumb enough to enjoy it and not really want to quit an addiction, when it’s fairly well known that being addicted to a thing is considered bad.  

I don’t really care if people consider cool or uncool.  All I know is that I’ve quit smoking tobacco and that’s good for me.  I know that the chemicals in Ecigs are considered safe and some have been (in the case of propylene glycol) since 1948.

This too, shall pass, and the nanny state (both parties, for those of you who want to tell me it’s the other side) will tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body again.

Then again, in 20 years (or more.  or less.) a study might come out telling me that ecigs will kill me just as nastily as tobacco would have.

And that’s okay.  Because at least I tried to get away from something I know is harmful by trying something I was fairly sure was less harmful.  At least I did what I could to deal with an addiction I didn’t know how to break (and wasn’t sure I wanted to).  

I’d rather be a guy who tried and died than a guy who just gave up and accepted that he was slowly killing himself.

I may not be strong enough or have enough desire to break my nicotine habit, but at least I tried to use something that I’m fairly sure won’t poison me and everyone I know.  

As for the risk?  People take risks all the time.  Crash diets.  Pills to change their metabolism.  Getting blind drunk.  A hundred thousand ways to hurt yourself, poison yourself and probably hurt others in the process, but there is less negative media coverage given to those things than is being given to ecigs.  Of course, not too many years ago, there were lots of news stories about why it was unhealthy to drink at all (now debunked) and why diet pills will kill you and make you fatter (dunno if this one is still true or not), how caffeine is terrible for you (now debunked) and how drinking tap water will mutate you into a Ninja Turtle (still holding out hope).

I’m going to stick with ecigs and keep hoping that I have found the gateway to beating my addiction - or, at the very least, get away from the addictive substance I know is a deadly poison.

Judge me if you will.  I’m okay with that.

1 week agotarnishedwordsgrimmgreenindustries 65 notes#vaping #vape #ecig #electronic cigarette

socalcrunch:

vaping:

Um…duh? I don’t really understand why people who don’t take the time to research what they’re “arguing” about even bother to post this crap. Seriously, talk to us…a LOT of us will tell you, WE DON’T MIND BEING ADDICTED TO THE NICOTINE! It’s no more harmful than caffeine, and truthfully, I think I take in a lot less nicotine than some people do caffeine…

We KNOW nicotine is addictive and guess what? WE LIKE IT! We like the boost it gives to our focus and concentration, we like that fewer people who use nicotine end up with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, we like that it improves brain function and helps with memory…

Those of us who are NOT trying to “quit” are just glad to be rid of the 1000s of toxic chemicals present in regular cigarettes and happy with the fact that we can reap the benefits of nicotine without the carcinogens. 

We don’t all want to quit.

That article was pretty neutral.  Not ALL people know what they’re getting into before they start.

Honestly, I’m sure most people know the side effects of nicotine but the long-term saftey of e-cigs still isn’t known.  As a general rule, that can be a dangerous thing.

Yes, it’s still safer than cigarettes because you could probably name 99% of the things on this earth and they would still be less harmful than cigarettes.  It’s not a great argument.

The issue is that nicotine has side effects that don’t only affect you.  They affect the people around you too.  It increases your blood pressure which may be fine NOW but when you get older, it’s going to be a major problem.  It also can calm you for a moment but when you get super irritated, it’s noticeable and it’s awkward.  While secondhand vaping may be less harmful than secondhand smoking, YOU are still making a decision about what I’M breathing.  While you may consider the ingredients safe for inhaling, not much has been done to study them and I honestly prefer to know the health effects before I make a decision.  Too bad it’s not my decision, right?  I mean, not ALL people want to quit!  How selfish of me to look after my own health.

Seriously, the more I read about these, the more I hate them.  I made a vow at 8 years old that I would never love somebody who smoked cigarettes but this e-cig stuff came at me out of nowhere.  And now I’m left trying to figure out what the heck I’m supposed to think or do about something I don’t know about but can’t stop.

It’s fucking irritating.  People who use e-cigs aren’t the only ones affected.  I’d like more say in what might harm me and my future family.

I work in a hospital and I actually DO know what research has been done on them, including the fact that the vapor that I exhale dissipates before it goes anywhere. It’s also less toxic than some perfumes, ALL auto emissions, smog, the chemicals in your shampoo, and so many other things.

Other than the nicotine, the ingredients in ecigs are in your toothpaste, your food, your cosmetics, your deodorant…

Do some research.

1 week agosocalcrunchvaping 37 notes#vaping #vape #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

dickardcain:

gryphknight:

vaping:

Um…duh? I don’t really understand why people who don’t take the time to research what they’re “arguing” about even bother to post this crap. Seriously, talk to us…a LOT of us will tell you, WE DON’T MIND BEING ADDICTED TO THE NICOTINE! It’s no more harmful than caffeine, and truthfully, I think I take in a lot less nicotine than some people do caffeine…

We KNOW nicotine is addictive and guess what? WE LIKE IT! We like the boost it gives to our focus and concentration, we like that fewer people who use nicotine end up with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, we like that it improves brain function and helps with memory…

Those of us who are NOT trying to “quit” are just glad to be rid of the 1000s of toxic chemicals present in regular cigarettes and happy with the fact that we can reap the benefits of nicotine without the carcinogens. 

We don’t all want to quit.

Anyone wanna lay odds that some numbskull, somewhere in this “progressive” world of ours will claim to have gotten lung cancer from second-hand e-smoke?

A ~huge~ part of all the Smokers-are-Evil-Incarnate Outrage has to do with it being considered a “sin” that only dirty people engage in.

I don’t think smokers are evil, but smoking anything is something I would never do.

Additionally, the smell of cigarette smoke, regular, menthol, or clove. Bugs the hell out of me. I can smell weed in a sealed plastic bag in someone’s pocket. Even if it’s not skunk weed.

I’m not begrudging people’s right to smoke. But I definitely would ask house guests to not smoke inside my home.

We are not smoking…we are vaping. Ecigs. With water vapor. No smoke. It smells like fruit or candy. People at my office come by my desk and tell me how awesome it smells.

1 week agodickardcainvaping 37 notes
So ecigs are tobacco now?

So ecigs are tobacco now?

1 week ago 3 notes#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

Interesting article…definitely worth a read. This is how misinformation continues to propagate!

1 week ago 2 notes#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

The debate over electronic cigarettes has been heating up in California as a bill works its way through the government with hopes of making electronic cigarettes as restricted as conventional cigarettes.  A radio broadcast on Tuesday did a great job of capturing both sides of the debate.  But now it’s time to look at exactly whats wrong with what electronic cigarette opponents are saying to make the bill a reality.

1 week ago 2 notes#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

I can’t believe this entire article LOL! When I first read through it, I thought it must be a very old article from when ecigs first came out. Nope, it’s from September 2013.

It’s unreal that articles are STILL citing that old, faulty FDA “study” that found antifreeze in ejuice.

It’s unreal that articles are still saying that “they don’t know what’s in ejuice.”

It’s unreal that articles are still saying that there are no studies supporting the use of ecigs.

It’s unreal to me that anyone in their right mind would say that vaping is worse than smoking regular cigarettes.

Yes, the ejuice industry probably needs regulations put in place for safety and manufacturing standards. Yes, more studies need to be done about potential health risks. 

BUT most vendors clearly disclose what is in their juice. AND studies HAVE been done, by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS EVEN, supporting the benefits of ecigs compared with conventional cigarettes. 

Do journalists even bother to research anymore????

1 week ago 1 note#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

Source: Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Spyrou A, Voudris V. Impact of Flavour Variability on Electronic Cigarette Use Experience: An Internet Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2013; 10(12):7272-7282.

Full article can be downloaded in PDF format from the link.

1 week ago 1 note#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes — battery-operated nicotine-delivery devices that mimic the look and feel of smoking by vaporizing a liquid solution such as propylene glycol — appeared in European and American markets less than a decade ago. Sales have reached $650 million a year in Europe and are projected to reach $1.7 billion in the United States in 2013. Though these figures are a small fraction of sales figures for traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes represent a substantial market achievement; indeed, some people predict that they may eventually eclipse tobacco cigarettes.

But e-cigarettes are the subject of a public health dispute that has become more furious as their popularity has increased. Whereas some experts welcome the e-cigarette as a pathway to the reduction or cessation of tobacco use, opponents characterize it as a dangerous product that could undermine efforts to denormalize smoking. Already, Boston has applied workplace smoking bans to e-cigarettes. New York City and Los Angeles are poised to go a step further, prohibiting their use in public (including in parks and on beaches), though a similar proposal recently stalled in Chicago. This debate occurs as tobacco-control advocates have begun examining policy options for a tobacco “endgame” — the implementation of radical strategies for eliminating tobacco use globally.

Marketing campaigns for e-cigarettes threaten to reverse the successful, decades-long public health campaign to denormalize smoking. The chief advertising officer of one e-cigarette company has spoken explicitly about the “renormalization” of smoking in the form of “vaping” — the popular name for e-cigarette use. Even Big Tobacco dared not utter such words as the image of smoking was transformed over the decades. As information about the hazards of sidestream smoke was publicized in the 1980s and 1990s, the imperative to protect “innocent bystanders” moved to the center of tobacco-control efforts, and public smoking bans pushed smokers into the shadows. The once-widespread habit didn’t simply become denormalized or marginalized; it became highly stigmatized. The pervasive became perverse.

E-cigarette advertisements, even as they denigrate traditional tobacco cigarettes, are challenging a barrier to television promotion erected more than 40 years ago. “Smelling like an ashtray is not the ideal aphrodisiac,” scolds talk-show host Jenny McCarthy, as she enjoys her Blu eCig. Actor Stephen Dorff, another Blu spokesperson and former smoker, similarly acknowledges that smoking is seen as dirty but adds, “I’m tired of feeling guilty every time I want to light up.” He implies that public health messages are paternalistic: “We’re all adults here. It’s time to take our freedom back. Come on guys, rise from the ashes.” On Super Bowl Sunday 2013, an NJOY e-cigarette ad seen by 10 million viewers declared, “Finally, smokers have a real alternative. Cigarettes, you’ve met your match.”

The tobacco-control community has responded to these messages with alarm. In 2009, the World Health Organization warned that e-cigarettes threatened bans on public smoking, which have been key to tobacco control. Similar concerns were raised by anti-tobacco activist Stanton Glantz and his colleagues: “Given the substantial research demonstrating the effect of viewing smoking in the movies on adolescent smoking initiation, the addictive nature of nicotine and the lack of regulatory assurance of their quality or safety, it is important to keep ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery systems], and other similar products, from being sensationalized through the use of celebrity promotion or product placement in movies or other entertainment media.”1

These fears are compounded by data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that twice as many young people experimented with e-cigarettes in 2012 as in 2011, although use of tobacco cigarettes declined in the same period (see graph

If e-cigarettes prove to be a “gateway” or “bridge” product, leading to an increase in underage smoking, that would represent a serious setback in the fight against tobacco-related illness. Invoking images of terrorism, two tobacco-control advocates claim that “smoking bans and clean air advocacy are being hijacked.”2 Australian tobacco-control advocates Simon Chapman and Melanie Wakefield warn that something sinister is at work. The goal of e-cigarette makers is not cessation of tobacco use but “dual use”: e-cigarettes simply “capitalize on harm-reduction sentiment” to sustain what has become a private habit by reopening public spaces. They argue, “This could be a harm-increasing outcome when assessed against the status quo of ever-declining smoking prevalence.”3

In September 2013, 40 U.S. attorneys general called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to act swiftly to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products. Dr. Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health, has urged leaders of U.S. schools of public health to join an effort to make U.S. colleges and universities smoke-free, which would include banning e-cigarettes.

The most vocal supporters of e-cigarettes, other than those with commercial interests in them, have been public health professionals who’ve embraced the strategy of harm reduction — an approach to risky behavior that prioritizes minimizing damage rather than eliminating the behavior. Harm reduction was the guiding principle behind needle exchange, the provision of sterile syringes to injection-drug users to reduce bloodborne transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis, and other illnesses. Some harm-reduction advocates frame an abstinence-only stance as “moralistic,” arguing that “it is nonsensical to dismiss an alternative” by demanding absolute safety. Furthermore, some such advocates believe that not only e-cigarettes but also smokeless tobacco products hold “the potential to lead to one of the greatest public health breakthroughs in human history by fundamentally changing the forecast of a billion cigarette-caused deaths this century.”4

Although the evidence is limited and contested, some studies suggest that the majority of e-cigarette users treat them as cessation aides and report that they’ve been key to quitting smoking. For example, in one study, e-cigarettes compare favorably to nicotine-replacement therapies in terms of the likelihood of having returned to smoking 6 months after a cessation attempt.5

Given the near unanimity of the public health community in pressing for harm reduction for injection-drug users in the face of relentless political opposition, some harm-reduction advocates find it stunning that their allies in that struggle have embraced an abstinence-only position on smoking. These advocates claim that a strategy of reducing, though not eliminating, risk is a moral imperative, given the certainty of harm associated with continued tobacco smoking.

The debate’s stakes are heightened by the current discussion of the tobacco endgame, which aims to eliminate smoking or reduce it to very low levels. Most endgame strategists have advanced prohibitionist policies, from complete bans on traditional cigarettes, to regulatory strategies that would reduce and eventually eliminate nicotine, to efforts to manipulate pH levels in tobacco to make inhaling unpleasant.

This debate compels us to address the fundamental issue posed by Kenneth Warner in a recent issue of Tobacco Control devoted to endgame strategies: “What would constitute a final victory in tobacco control?” Warner’s question raises several others: Must victory entail complete abstinence from e-cigarettes as well as tobacco? To what levels must we reduce the prevalence of smoking? What lessons should be drawn from the histories of alcohol and narcotic-drug prohibition?

From the glowing tip to the smokelike vapor, e-cigarettes seek to mimic the personal experience and public performance of smoking. But ironically, the attraction of the device is predicated on the continued stigmatization of tobacco cigarettes. Although abstinence-only and strict denormalization strategies may be incompatible with e-cigarette use, the goal of eliminating smoking-related risks is not. We may not be able to rid the public sphere of “vaping,” but given the magnitude of tobacco-related deaths — some 6 million globally every year and 400,000 in the United States, disproportionately among people at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum — an unwillingness to consider e-cigarette use until all risks or uncertainties are eliminated strays dangerously close to dogmatism. We believe that states should ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and the FDA should move swiftly to regulate them so that their potential harms are better understood — and so that they can contribute to the goal of harm reduction.

Source: From the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York.

Emphasis (bold) mine.

1 week ago 1 note#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes
Commentary on a recent article re e-cigs in The Lancet

Emphasis (bold) added by me.

We read with great interest the Comments 1 2 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, which debated if, how, and by whom electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) should be regulated.

E-cigarettes are increasingly used as substitutes for tobacco cigarettes, 3 with some suggestion that the rapidly increasing popularity of e-cigarettes brought about a decrease in tobacco cigarette sales in the USA at the start of 2013. 4 The main reason for regulation of these products is said to be to ensure that consumers are protected. However, the consumers’ perspective has been largely overlooked. For consumers, safety is a concern, but is secondary in view of the hazards of the product (ie, tobacco cigarette) being replaced. 5 Most consumers would be content with regulations that helped to ensure product consistency and prevent contamination, but see no need to apply the strict regulations used for pharmaceutical products that would lead to unnecessary increases in the price of e-cigarettes. 6 Our experience suggests that many former smokers who transitioned to an e-cigarette believe that the main goal for regulators should be to keep e-cigarettes available and acceptable as a cigarette replacement. Excessive and ill-conceived regulation will conflict with these basic requirements; it will marginalise e-cigarettes by making them unattractive to smokers and less competitively priced compared with tobacco products.

Future regulatory measures should primarily address quality standards of liquids used in e-cigarettes (e-liquids) and should require 1) evidence that good manufacturing practices have been followed; 2) official documentation reporting contents and concentrations in e-liquids to regulators; and 3) clear, accurate, and detailed labelling about the contents and possible dangers of inappropriate handling (eg, accidental poisoning) associated with e-cigarette use.

Such a regulatory framework already exists; e-liquids can be marketed as dietary supplements, provided that no claims are made about prevention or treatment of disease. Under dietary supplement regulation, manufacturers must show that a product is not dangerous before introduction. Compliance with national good manufacturing practice policies would ensure that e-liquids are produced in a quality manner, do not contain contaminants or impurities, are accurately labelled, and are held under conditions to prevent adulteration. Additional restrictions could be implemented, including a rule requiring e-liquid manufacturers to submit a report to the relevant health authority of serious adverse events linked to the use of their products. With regard to marketing and safety of e-cigarettes’ electronics, batteries, and spare parts, these components are already regulated by existing directives.

Therefore, it should be easy to implement reasonable regulation that is in line with consumer’s aspirations. However, introduction of such regulation will not be as easy as it seems. The rapidly expanding popularity of e-cigarettes is a threat to the interests of both the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry and to their associated stakeholders. The large revenues generated by tobacco excise taxes are needed by national governments to run their countries and sponsorship for the marketing of anti-smoking drugs and those intended to treat tobacco-related diseases are much needed by pharmaceutical regulatory bodies, health authorities, and medical societies for the running of their statutory activities.

RP has received lecture fees and research funding from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of stop smoking medications; has served as a consultant for Pfizer and Arbi Group Srl, the distributor of the categoria e-cigarette; and currently serves as Chief Scientific Advisor for LIAF (the Italian Anti-Smoking League). PC declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Source: Polosa R, Caponnetto P. Regulation of e-cigarettes: the users’ perspective, Lancet Respitatory Medicine, 2013-09-01, Volume 1, Issue 7, pp e26-e26.

1 week ago 1 note#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes
Commentary: If wisely regulated, electronic cigarettes can make cigarettes obsolete.

Current laws authorize nicotine only in smoked tobacco (snus is banned in the EU except in Sweden) and in nicotine medications. Because nicotone medications are not very appealing and are seldom used as a long-term alternative to tobacco, people who need nicotine are forced by current laws to smoke tobacco. These laws are responsible for a public health disaster (700,000 tobacco-related deaths in the EU each year) and they have to change. The debate on the place of new nicotine products in society and in the law (including products that heat tobacco instead of burning it) is among the most important health debates in recent decades. Applying rules to e-cigarettes designed initially for medicines and tobacco would be disproportionate, and have serious adverse consequences for public health. Wise, proportionate regulation of e-cigarettes is needed, and such regulation can only be achieved if all stakeholders are involved, including vapers, manufacturers and scientists, not just technocrats and regulators. The next months will see the regulation of e-cigarettes in the EU and the United States. This is a crucial moment, a narrow window of opportunity. If wisely regulated, e-cigarettes can make cigarettes obsolete. The stakes are high, and we need to play it right.

Source: Etter, J.-F. (2014), Commentary on Goniewicz et al. (2014): If wisely regulated, electronic cigarettes can make cigarettes obsolete. Addiction, 109: 508–509. doi: 10.1111/add.12473

1 week ago 2 notes#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes
Is there any legal and scientific basis for classifying electronic cigarettes as medications?

This is an abstract of an article that’s currently In Press in the International Journal of Drug Policy.

The rapid growth in the use of electronic cigarettes has been accompanied by substantial discussions by governments, international organisations, consumers and public health experts about how they might be regulated. In the European Union they are currently regulated under consumer legislation but new legislation will regulate them under the Tobacco Products Directive. However, several countries have sought to regulate them under medicines regulations. These claims have been successfully challenged in 6 court cases in European states. Under European legislation a product may be deemed to be a medicine by function if it is used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis. It is a medicine by presentation if it is presented (e.g. by a manufacturer or distributor) as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings. We assess the legal and scientific basis for the claim that electronic cigarettes should be regulated as medicines. We conclude that they are neither medicine by function nor necessarily by presentation. The main reason for their existence is as a harm reduction product in which the liking for and/or dependence on nicotine is maintained, and adoption of use is as a substitute for smoking and not as a smoking cessation product. In reality, they are used as consumer products providing pleasure to the user. They are not used to treat nicotine addiction or other disease, but to enable continued use of nicotine. Their use is adjusted individually by each consumer according to his or her perceived pleasure and satisfaction. Gaps in current regulation regarding safety and quality can be met by tailored regulations.

Source: Farsalinos,K.E.,&Stimson,G.V.Is thereanylegalandscientificbasis forclassifyingelectroniccigarettes as medications? International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.03.003

I quote from the study’s Conclusions: 

They are not used to treat nicotine addiction or any other disease, but to maintain continued use of nicotine through a cleaner form compared to combustible tobacco. They are used as a long-term consumer product and their use is adjusted to each consumer according to his or her perceived pleasure and satisfaction. On the contrary, no medication is administered without a specific pre-determined dosage scheme and no medication is developed or recommended for pleasure and satisfaction.

The study does indicate that the industry needs to be better regulated - for safety reasons - which I completely agree with, but they should not be regulated as a medical device. While I do agree with them comparing it with snus, I don’t agree with them comparing them with cigarettes, and I don’t think ecigs should be subject to the same regulations as regular cigarettes (i.e., exorbitant taxes, unrealistic standards, etc). 

1 week ago 2 notes#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes
1 week ago 2 notes#vape #vaping #ecigs #electronic cigarettes
+