However, market analyst, not health lobbyist, not e-cig vendors but the guys that watch the markets feel that e-cigs will actually do the complete opposite, they won’t normalize, instead, they will assist in the denormaliztion of smoking, and they’ll do this by helping to reduce the numbers of people actually smoking.

Wells Fargo have stated in one of their bulletins about e-cigarettes:

“Unit sales( of tobacco cigarettes) were at the lowest they’ve been in the past year and we believe could be partially due to the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes, whose consumption we believe could surpass traditional cigs within the next decade.”

Professor Michael Siegel, a great proponent of electronic cigarettes concurs with this financial opinion, and giving it a slight psychological slant – he says:

“The most important factor in the normalization or de-normalization of cigarette smoking is the prevalence of smoking. The more smokers, the more smoking is normalized. A substantial decline in cigarette consumption, as predicted by these analysts, would do more than any other intervention to de-normalize smoking.”

Makes sense to me.

Carmona holds other positions along side this new one, he is the Professor of Public health at the University of Arizona, where in 2003 he published research that concluded; ‘breathing any amount of someone else’s tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers and was instrumental in smoking bans around the country’. In the same year, Carmona testified to a Congressional committee in where he was pretty critical about the possibility of safer tobacco alternatives to smoking.

Some cynics might be pointing to a possible fat pay cheque as the reason for accepting this role, but on taking up the position Carmona stated, “I’m probably going to be (the company’s) biggest critic. … I still look at my job as being a doctor of the people and I’m going to look at the science. … If we can find a viable alternative that gives us harm reduction as people are withdrawing from nicotine, I’m happy to engage in that science and see if we can do that.”

A fellow professor and tobacco expert from Canada has been quoted as saying, “When he comes on board, it’s very hard for anti-tobacco people who see themselves as health campaigners to simply oppose e-cigarettes. They have to deal with the fact that one of the leaders of their community not only is supporting e-cigarettes but is willing to be on the board of directors of the biggest e-cigarette company.”

Let’s hope this move bodes well for the vaping community as a whole.

(information taken from the tobacco reporter)

A second proposed Senate Bill – number 194, introduced at the same time, with three well known anti tobacco supporters – Senators Dubin, Blumenthal and Lautenberg, could, according to the website Trautman Saunders Tobacco Law, devastate the e-cigarette industry, as this would allow the following:

“Authorize the Treasury Department to impose federal excise taxes on e-cigarettes (also at a rate equivalent to cigarettes) if FDA deems e-cigarettes to be “tobacco products.”

Increase the pipe tobacco rate to the same as RYO tobacco.

Increase taxes for large cigars to a minimum of 5.033 cents per cigar (this measure is designed to ensure that all cigars are taxed at least as much as cigarettes) and to a maximum of $1.00 per cigar.

Increase the tax rate for snuff from $1.51 to $13.42 per pound.

Increase the tax rate for chewing tobacco from 50.33 cents to $5.37 per pound.

Amend the definition of RYO tobacco to include any processed tobacco that is transferred to someone other than a permitted manufacturer (this would close an arguable loophole that allows individuals to make their own RYO tobacco cigarettes without tax payments).”

However, members of a well known e-cigarette forum have been discussing these proposed bills, and the general consensus is that tobacco tax is a state legislature affair, not a Senate one, and that two of the four Senators involved with the bills are not seeking re-election next year, and a such  they are optimistic that these bills will not be passed.

But what are your thoughts on this?

( Adkison SE, et al. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey. Am J Prev Med. March, 2013.)

This important survey had 5,993 participants, all either smokers or former smokers, but all users of e-cigarettes, and were based either in the United Kingdom, The USA, Australia or Canada. After researching the participants electronic cigarette use and habits, and the reason why they started to use an e-cigarettes in the first place, they found that users tobacco cigarette consumption had dropped by 12%, which is twice the reduction observed among those not using electronic cigarettes.

What was also interesting were the 11% of e-cigarette users in this study that actually quit tobacco cigarettes altogether as well.

What emerged from this study is that 85% of those interviewed were using the electronic cigarette to quit smoking, (despite it not being advertised or endorsed as a quit smoking product,) and of those 85%, 75% said that they were using it to definitely help them cut down the amount they smoked.

These findings corroborate what those in the vaping community already know, that once people find electronic cigarettes, most people find them of value.

The study concludes: “Because this trial was associated with non daily smoking and a desire to quit smoking, ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery systems) may have the potential to serve as a cessation aid once enforceable product standards are developed and effıcacy is established through clinical trials.”

What is good to hear is that this trial is that acknowledgement that it has helped people to reduce their tobacco cigarette consumption – but what is slightly unnerving is the line ‘once enforceable product standards are developed and effıcacy is established through clinical trials’. This takes it nearer to being seen as a medicine, when quite clearly it isn’t.

What this study also shows, and this is of incredible significance, is that

“The fears of anti-smoking groups that these products are being 
marketed and used mainly as a way to get around smoking bans, and that 
there is no true intent to get off of cigarettes are not borne out by 
this research.”

Though some people do use them as such.

Because lots of folk did, including the folks that work at the American Lung Association (ALA), and they are not happy campers at all people, not at all.

They feel that this one advert is going to undo ALL the good that the anti tobacco campaign has achieved – seeing a man puff on an e-cigarette  and all their hard work collapses.

But only one person was enraged/upset enough by the ad to complain officially about it.

But back to the ALA,  If their hard work can be undone by an advert for a product that is far less harmful, doesn’t say much about them does it? But then the stats prove that the smoking rates, despite the draconian anti smoking laws have hardly fallen at all.  So maybe they should be concerned, after all they trot out the same stuff, year in year out. Bit like the FDA and some members of the media.

Over 5 years down the line and the same tired old lines are being lazily quoted, and quite frankly it’s becoming boring. In the article where the reporter states the concerns by the ALA re the Superbowl advert, he trots out the old antifreeze gem, without qualifying what antifreeze is, (it’s not just for the car,) and without letting the reader know that the levels were minuscule and non-toxic. No, that was left out.

We also have the gem that e-cigs may be harmful, and there is no scientific evidence to show that they are not.

So the millions of users world wide, and the hundreds of studies stating their benefits are not enough? No one has yet to find that e-cigs are as harmful as cigarettes, so far the findings have found they are less harmful. Millions of people have switched from cigarettes to vaping -  millions -  is that not a big enough number for the ‘scientists’? These are smokers who of their own accord have switched – not because some government agency has told them to, no, but because word of mouth is a powerful thing, and so is feeling better – cutting out the crap of cigarettes without the awful struggle of cold turkey and NRT is a good thing, isn’t it?

Perhaps the ALA is upset because people are thinking for themselves, and they might just be able to see the difference between an e-cig and a cigarette?

The words ‘knee jerk reaction’ come to mind.

At present, one of the warnings below must be clearly printed on the packaging.

“WARNING: This product can cause mouth cancer.”

“WARNING: This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss.”

“WARNING: This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes.”

“WARNING: Smokeless tobacco is addictive.”

Interested parties now have 60 days within which to submit their proposals for new warning, but they must be backed up with scientific evidence of their validity.

So where does this leave e-cigarettes, that at present do not have the vast weight of scientific knowledge behind them, that other smokeless products have such as snus? Will ‘interested parties be able to submit suggestions specifically for e-cigs?

As e-cigarettes are new to the market, we do not know the log term effects of using them. We know they are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, we know that many people feel better once they have switched to vaping, and we know that Medics are charting improvements in their patients health, but we have to be aware that this is because they have switched to vaping and are no longer inhaling cigarette smoke. There are studies, both good and bad that show that vaping electronic cigarettes do affect the body, in one way or another, although the negative findings at present appear to be limited to some throat irritation from the PG, so it will be interesting to see what the FDA decide to instruct e-cig vendors to place on their packaging.

The study in question is called ‘The impact of Tobacco Related Health Warning Labels across Socio-Economic, Race and Ethnic Groups.’

Sounds impressive, and very politically correct.

That is until you read the finer details. It’s a web-based study, where smokers were asked to look at pictures over the internet of the horrid diseases on the ‘plain’ packs, and give their reactions to them. That was it. No follow up, no doing this when the cravings are high and they are in the store buying cigarettes, purely look at these pictures and tell us what you think.

Now, here’s a question for you –  do you always do what you say you are going to do? How many of us have said – never again to the soda, the beer, the chocolate, the glass of wine, but when it’s in front of us –  well things change don’t they?

Here’s what the prominent e-cig campaigner Michael Siegel think of this ‘research’ mentioned above, the quotes are taken from his blog – ‘The Rest of the Story’ where he campaigns for electronic cigarettes, and it is well worth a read.

“It merely shows that under experimental conditions, computer images that correspond to graphic warnings on cigarette packs stimulate a greater cognitive response than text-based messages.”

He continues.

“The fact is that people are very poor at predicting their actual behavior, especially for addictive behaviors such as smoking. It is easy for a smoker to report an increased intention to quit after seeing a computer image, but whether that translates into the smoker quitting after seeing that image on a cigarette pack after actually purchasing those cigarettes is not clear. It is certainly not appropriate to take this evidence and conclude that graphic warning labels are “instrumental in reducing the toll of the tobacco epidemic” or that this intervention is an “effective and efficient” one.”

But you can bet your bottom dollar that this ‘research’ will be wheeled out by the anti smoking lobby as credible.

In it the author suggest that the motivational paradigm (idea/theory) that we use is not good for us, and doesn’t really work.  He has scoured the research and he has proof that if you offer rewards for certain actions, the rewards have the opposite effect and people do worse, and the motivation goes down. Punishment generally doesn’t work either.

What he suggests is that for people to be really motivated, in many areas, they need a degree of autonomy. He uses examples of Google employees having 20% of their paid time to work on any project they like, and from this 20% many of the great breakthroughs have come – all because the staff exercised their autonomy.

Relate this to smoking. The usual stick is – you will die unless you stop- so the punishment for not stopping smoking is death. Then there is the give it up – using only these methods that we tell you. The reward is you get improved health and probably more money in your pocket, but to get there is hard work, and you are being told you have to do it, in a prescribed way.

Now bring in the e-cig – and with it comes autonomy. No one has told you to use it – a friend may have suggested it – but there is no punishment if you don’t switch. But once you have tried it, and you like it – you are then in control – you have the autonomy. You can vape when you like, at whatever strength or flavor you choose, using whichever device fits you. No prescriptions, no answering to anybody, no authority figure monitoring you (we hope!), Complete autonomy, which brings with it a sense of wellbeing and satisfaction, and because of this, your motivation to continue vaping is stronger, and you continue at your own will.

Add  to this sense of well being brought about by the sense of autonomy the hand /mouth action, the sense of community, the clean delivery of nicotine, and it’s no wonder these little devices are so popular.

Please read the excerpt below – from the CASSA website, it includes all the relevant links.

There is a time limit on this-   you have until the 16^th Jan – that’s WEDNESDAY OF THIS WEEK!! So please act NOW.

Why? Because:

The FDA will use the testimony that was given at the December 17 hearing, plus the written comments submitted by January 16, 2013 as input for the report to Congress required by the Tobacco Act.

How to Submit Written Comments:

To submit a comment electronically: On the page http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2012-N-1148-0011 (Link updated 1/3/13), click the “Comment Now” button. Comments that you type into the comment field are limited to 2,000 characters. If your comment is longer, you can upload a file that contains your comment and just type “See attachment” into the Comment field.

To submit a comment by U.S. Mail: Send to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1148].

Electronic or written comments will be accepted until January 16, 2013.

What to Say:

1. Describe your history as a smoker: When did you start? How long did you smoke? How much did you smoke?

2. Describe your quitting attempts: How many times did you try to quit? What different products and methods did you try? What did you like and dislike about the products or methods you tried?

3. If you stopped smoking completely some time in the past and experienced problems such as feeling depressed and/or anxious, getting along with others, concentrating, remembering, etc. describe those experiences.

4. Describe the effects switching to e-cigarettes has had on how much you smoke now.

5. Describe the health effects you have experienced as a result of switching to e-cigarettes (and/or snus).

6. Tell the FDA that there should not be any time limit on using NRTs, but that it would be better to raise the amount of nicotine each piece provides than to have people use multiple types of products.

7. Tell the FDA that innovative products such as e-cigarettes should not be made less effective by setting nicotine doses too low.

8. If you use e-liquid (or snus) that has a pleasant flavor added (such as fruit, candy, beverage), tell the FDA that this has helped you and describe how.

9. Urge the FDA to not propose the “deeming” regulation because it would ban e-cigarettes, and would sharply increase the price and reduce accessibility of the products even if FDA exempted e-cigarettes from the most onerous provisions in Chapter IX.

10. Ask the FDA to remove text from its web site that is inaccurate and/or misleading.

• For example, many people believe that e-cigarettes are very likely to cause cancer or poison the user because the FDA “forgot” to mention that the amount of carcinogens detected in liquid are no higher than in pharmaceutical nicotine products such as the patch and gum, and that the only toxin detected was in an amount that has never been shown to endanger health.
• Many people that might have switched to snus, which is much less

Many people that might have switched to snus, which is much less hazardous to health than smoking, but they were convinced to continue smoking instead by the misleading statement “This product is not a safe alternative to smoking.

Sec. 918(b) requires the Secretary to submit a report to congress “that examines how best to regulate, promote, and encourage the development of innovative products and treatments (including nicotine-based and non-nicotine-based products and treatments) to better achieve, in a manner that best protects and promotes the public health–

Sections 911 and 918 would change our focus to include measures to mitigate the harm caused by smoking, i.e  -  electronic cigarettes.

Please write to the FDA, as your vaping future will probably depend upon it.