[italics my own]
This article was gleaned from the internet and is unfortunately typical of the focus that is being exaggerated with little proof that a concern, other than the general moral dilemma of minors accessing electronic cigarettes, that is more emotion than reality. In a Wall Street Journal Article Mike Esterl this is unfortunately again the litany of the electronic cigarette foes that is eschewed.
E-Cigarettes Draw Fire From Legislators — Limits Sought on Nicotine-Mist Devices; Users Say They Eliminate Secondhand Smoke and Help Break Tobacco Addiction
2 March 2012
There’s no smoke, but there’s plenty of fire.
A growing number of states are taking aim at electronic cigarettes in the absence of federal regulations, intensifying a public-health debate over the fast-growing alternative to traditional cigarettes.
Lawmakers in more than half a dozen states from Arizona to New York have introduced legislation this year that would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. Bills in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Utah would extend smoking bans in public areas to include e-cigarettes, and politicians in other states have proposed special taxes and halting Internet sales.
[Interesting the point made regarding taxes and bans. A comment in the Utah house included You Tube as one of their sources for information.]
The activity comes as more Americans turn to the battery-powered tubes, which turn nicotine-laced liquid into a vapor mist that is inhaled. Annual sales of e-cigarettes in the U.S. have grown to between $250 million and $500 million since arriving from China five years ago, according to industry estimates. That still represents a sliver of the roughly $100 billion U.S. tobacco market.
A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated 2.7% of U.S. adults had tried e-cigarettes by 2010, up from 0.6% a year earlier.
Anti-smoking groups seeking tight regulations on e-cigarettes say not enough is known about their health effects and that scientific studies are scant. They also say e-cigarettes are more likely to attract youth because they come in flavors like chocolate, cherry and pina colada.
[Anti-smoking groups are quite aware of the scant evidence of any direct harm from electronic cigarettes. They are quite aware of the dangers of combustible tobacco and the difference between the two, yet do not see the risk/benefit ratios for reduction of harm. 4000+ chemicals are produced in the combustion of tobacco, 50-60 of them known carcinogens. Nicotine is not one of the carcinogens. Nicotine is a plant alkaloid, where are the ban tomato and eggplant outcries as they are nicotine sources? The FDA approved smoking cessation patches and gums contain trace levels of carcinogens at about the same of slightly higher that of e-liquids. Words are everything! Look at this line from a Nature article (1) http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/fig_tab/nrc1190_F1.html
Nicotine and carcinogens can also bind directly to some cellular receptors, leading to activation of the serine threonine kinase AKT (also known as protein kinase B), protein kinase A (PKA) and other factors. This, in turn, can result in decreased apoptosis, increased angiogenesis and increased cell transformation. Tobacco products also contain tumor promoters and co-carcinogens, which could activate protein kinase C (PKC), activator protein 1 (AP1) or other factors, thereby enhancing carcinogenesis.
[Bias is the inclusion of personal views, agendas and sometimes the unconscious inference of association. Note the paragraph starts with, “Nicotine and carcinogens…, association with words but not data. The carcinogens are in the combustible products of smoking, vaping is not smoke. In the diagram associated with the above link the figure gives the implied message that nicotine becomes the carcinogen. Nicotine should be replaced by the word smoke. Back to the article.]
In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration warned that e-cigarettes may pose health risks after its laboratory analysis of samples detected carcinogens and toxic chemicals. The agency said in April it planned to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, but it has yet to issue its proposal. It could be several more months or even years before federal rules are implemented.
“It’s a very serious and important issue. We obviously need to learn more about potential health benefits and risks of novel products,” said Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. He added the agency is moving “expeditiously” to propose e-cigarette regulations.
[Again the vials of 2009, with trace amounts of diacetyl (within the FDA’s) own standards. This is never left out of any article that needs to associate electronic cigarettes with cancer. No further studies have been done and the trace carcinogens are again in league with the FDA approved replacement agents. Can we move on to science. One shot analysis is not scientific research or following the scientific method]
E-cigarette users — so-called vapers — and some health experts are urging regulators to tread lightly. They say e-cigarettes help nicotine addicts quit more harmful traditional cigarettes, which release most of the toxins that cause disease through combustion, and eliminate the problem of secondhand smoke.
“We finally found something that worked; we quit smoking, and they want to ban it,” said Elaine Keller, president of the nonprofit Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, a consumer group that has received funding from e-cigarette companies but is mainly supported by e-cigarette users.
“To put some sort of major obstacle in the way of its use would be really unfortunate,” said Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health.
[Slight breath of fresh air, and even quotes CASAA]
Dr. Siegel said inhaling propylene glycol, a respiratory irritant found in e-cigarettes, represents a major health concern. But he also noted the FDA’s initial 2009 test and more than a dozen industry-commissioned lab studies indicate e-cigarettes have far fewer carcinogens or toxins and at far lower levels than traditional cigarettes, which are linked to an estimated 443,000 deaths a year.
Even e-cigarette companies support some regulation of an industry that has sprouted hundreds of start-up brands but still lacks standardized oversight. Although a growing number of brands such as NJOY and blu Cigs can be found at major retailers like 7-Eleven, Walgreens and Wall-Mart, many are sold exclusively over the Internet. Since they aren’t taxed like traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes can cost half as much, according to some estimates.
While they support age restrictions, the companies say their products shouldn’t be cordoned off like traditional cigarettes or taxed at similar rates.
“We don’t believe they are analogous in terms of their impact on society,” said Craig Weiss, president of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Sottera Inc., which owns the NJOY brand.
Lawmakers in Hawaii have moved to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. But they backtracked last month on taxing the products at the same rate as traditional cigarettes after receiving more than 1,000 written submissions, many from e-cigarette users opposing the measure.
In Vermont, state Rep. Bill Frank has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18 years of age and make Internet-based sales punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. “If you’re going to get kids hooked on nicotine, they’re going to be smoking,” Mr. Frank, a Democrat, said.
[And that’s the fact Jack! Mr. Frank appears to have implied the e-cigarette is an entry level agent. We as of yet have seen evidence that the e-cigarette is an attractant of the youth (even pina colada). But under 18 or 19 consumption is not supported by venders or those that have switched]
Senators in Utah are weighing a House-approved bill that would extend bans on smoking in public areas to e-cigarettes. New Jersey already has such a law in place, as do some cities, including Boston and Seattle. Many anti-smoking groups say e-cigarettes, which often look like traditional cigarettes, spark confusion in nonsmoking areas, undermining bans.
[Undermining bans…. why is it always a way to circumvent cigarette use. Bias]
“I would rather err on the side of caution,” said state Rep. Susan Westrom, a Democrat who sponsored a similar bill in Kentucky, a major tobacco producer. She thinks too little is still known about e-cigarettes.
[And of course since there are significant issues with the multitude of personal stories that are evident in people who could not stop the known carcinogenic cigarette and have switched to e-cigarettes- and reported significant improvements in their self perception of their health. Err to caution- 400,000 deaths per year and no significant change with billions of dollars that go to Pharma for replacement therapies… insanity defined in a new way, ban a promising agent that may help. 70% of smokers want to quit… many cannot. Many do with e-cigarettes, some to abstinence, some to no nicotine vaping. Nice article, at least it included 2 paragraphs from real experts]