http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3418

Sheila Leavitt @ 1:

Yup. Big Tobacco is getting into the game and, either accidentally or on purpose, fucking it up for everybody. First, their e-cigs are crap. They're (generally) the ones that attempt to look like actual cigs, as opposed to the type you see in the photo above on the right. Also, they're the ones advertising on TV, trying to make vaping look "cool". In the bargain, the anti-tobacco people are coming out against e-cigs.

Worst thing is that if people only used the type of e-cigs that Big Tobacco sells (the type that look like cigs), they'd probably go back to smoking, as I did...until I found real vaporizers, with e-juice of my choosing, etc.

I'd not be surprised in the least if Big Tobacco was purposely making shitty e-cigs. That said, it pisses me off no end that folks like the L.A. City Council are forcing me to side with Big Tobacco on this one!

Listen to that interview and tell me if I'm missing something...

The state, and by default the cities, have no interest in allowing "vaping" to continue to grow. Huge tax dollars from cigarette sales. They increase the taxes on occasion under the guise of (at least partly) encouraging people to quit whilst funding various pet projects and dropping ten cents from every pack sold into the state general fund. That can't be replaced by sales tax from e-cig devices and they desperately need that tax money. Add in the influence from big tobacco and it's pretty clear, always follow the money. There's absolutely no proven danger from the vapor of e-cigs. There's absolutely no reason why a government entity should restrict them in a free society. Except that the government fears the loss of revenue...

I sat across from a e-cig smoker at a meeting and the smoke that went in my face stunk as badly as a regular cigarette, so health issues aside, the stench is still a problem.

Marzi @ 4:

Don't know what kind of e-cig that was, Marzi, but perhaps they had something other than e-juice in there (for example, THC liquid?) Real e-cigs are virtually, even completely, odorless.

Desi says that, if/when she's able to smell anything come from mine it smells vaguely sweet like cookies or cotton candy.

I believe you, but, again, I'll have to question what kind of e-cig that actually was that you were smelling. (And, of course, whatever the smell might have been, if it was so horrific that it's worth killing people for you to avoid it.)

I sat across from a e-cig smoker at a meeting and the smoke that went in my face stunk as badly as a regular cigarette

Many of us are very sensitive to the smell of cigarettes. I don't know how e-cigs smell, I haven't run across one yet. Down here behind the Orange Curtain people take pride in smoking real cigarettes. After all, Clinton warned against smoking so Orange County is for it. Don't tell a Libertarian what's bad for him.

However, the OC doesn't have a monopoly on smoking. I had to move from my LA apt because a smoker thought it was his right to smoke directly under my window. My apartment continually smelled like an ashtray. Down in the OC in my new apt it is just as bad.

In the old days of my childhood smokers smoked inside their own living quarters and didn't bother the living quarters of nonsmokers. Now days they don't want to expose their family or furniture to smoke so they blow it into mine living space. And that isn't enough, they litter their cigarette butts throughout the whole environment. We don't smoke but I clean up 100 butts a week from my carport.

It's a good thing it's hard to buy a gun in the USA.

Wow. Can he avoid the question any more? He is basically saying that because you might go back to cigs after ecigs, then ecigs are dangerous.

Also, "hundreds of chemicals?" What the hell is he talking about? There are three or four ingredients in e cig juice. Further, the process of combustion creates dangerous chemicals in itself. If you burn a sprig of organic lavender and inhaled it you would receive way more toxins than from an e cig (unless e cigs are being laced with poison).

Why doesn't the LA City Council get more concerned with Fukushima? If they are worried about cancer from e cigs, they should be 10000000000000000000X more concerned with Fukushima. How about test Pacific fish sold in LA?

I wonder who was pushing for this legislation in the first place? No one has ever complained when I have vaped in public. Hell, I still vape in bars in NYC and no one has ever stopped me. I vape on planes too, but I don't do it obviously because people don't like surprises on planes.

"Ghettoizing!!!!" Great.

First caller is RAD!

Damn, gotta get back to work. Keep it up Brad.

I'm sorry. But this guy (Koretz) comes across as an educated fool.
There are WAY too many studies by reliable scientists that disagree with almost all of his statements. Great job by Brad, but the words "may","might","could" are used way too often. Nothing is completely safe. Pointing out that something is "not safe" shows a person to be either ignorant or disingenuous. Making vapors go outside wight the smokers is like telling achholics to hang out in a bar.
Life is always a choice between greater and lesser risks --- zero risk is not an option. Striving to abolish risk kills people.

I work for a state-owned and operated facility (fairgrounds) and this issue is now under consideration. We are a smoke-free facility --- if we allow e-cigs (especially when some look like real cigs) then we may face a problem with smokers feeling they have the right to light up. It seems inherently unfair to allow vaping and not smoking. When you have 60,000 people in one place and you see "vapor" or "smoke", who is to say which is which? In this situation (and similar ones) I think it would cause more problems if allowed. I'm surprised, I think this is probably the first time I've parted company with you Brad!

@ Pattie Newton

With all due respect, I believe it is fundamentally unfair to equate vaping with smoking when they are two completwly chemical processes at work It is more accurate to think of the difference here as that between solar power and coal power. One pollutes and one doesn't. You do have a point about enforcing the smoking ban in large venues if there is confusion, but from my experience people smoke in large venues anyway. It's impossible to stop a handful of people in a crowd of 60000 from smoking. But if vaping led to a dramatic decrease in smoking, the benefit would far outweigh the detriment.

SkaT said @ 6:

Many of us are very sensitive to the smell of cigarettes. I don't know how e-cigs smell, I haven't run across one yet.

You probably have. But since they don't smell, you probably had no idea!

In the old days of my childhood smokers smoked inside their own living quarters and didn't bother the living quarters of nonsmokers. Now days they don't want to expose their family or furniture to smoke so they blow it into mine living space. And that isn't enough, they litter their cigarette butts throughout the whole environment. We don't smoke but I clean up 100 butts a week from my carport.

Sounds like you'd be a big proponent of e-cigs then! No smell! No butts!

Patti Newton @ 9:

It seems inherently unfair to allow vaping and not smoking.

Will you all consider not allowing nicotine patches or nicotine gum as well? Seems inherently unfair not to, no?

When you have 60,000 people in one place and you see "vapor" or "smoke", who is to say which is which?

Anybody can tell the difference. It's immediately obvious. One stinks, burns and is on fire. The other isn't.

In this situation (and similar ones) I think it would cause more problems if allowed.

"Problems" like helping fewer people die unnecessarily each year, at absolutely no discomfort to anyone? Am I missing the "problems" here?

"I'm surprised, I think this is probably the first time I've parted company with you Brad!"

No worries. You can't be right 100% of the time. You'll come around soon enough. I except your apology in advance.

SH @ 10:

I believe it is fundamentally unfair to equate vaping with smoking when they are two completwly chemical processes at work It is more accurate to think of the difference here as that between solar power and coal power. One pollutes and one doesn't.

VERY good analogy, SH. I may have to steal that. Thank you.

I would add one more layer to it: One kills and one doesn't.

Well done, Brad. I really like how you kept at this guy making your point. Anyways, I am in the EXACT same boat as you. I smoked cigs for years on end, couldn't quit using any other means (though I tried them all), but took up vaping almost a year ago, haven't had a cigarette since 2 weeks after I bought the vaporizer. Going on 10 months cigarette-free. And it wasn't just me. The day I went to the vape store, I brought 3 smokers from my office, with 60+ years combined smoking between them. They all bought the gear and juice and such like I did, and they have ALL QUIT SMOKING SINCE THEN, and now only Vape. ALL 4 out of 4 have succeeded. The idea this guy is promoting that vaping is 'no more effective' than things like the patch ... is NONSENSE. I've seen it first hand. And you can find testimonials like mine (and yours) ALL OVER the internet. Putting it simply, like you've said, Vaping is a friggin' miracle for smokers. Period.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze. The FDA’s Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes. In one sample, the FDA’s analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, and in several other samples, the FDA analyses detected carcinogens, including nitrosamines. These tests indicate that these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.

Brad @ 13

Thanks Brad! It's all yours.

Dennis @ 15

Now can you provide a comparison between these findings and all of the toxins found in cigarette smoke?

Also, does this assume that all juice has the same composition and that there is no other way to make it more safely?

Almost 30 thousand people became ill from food that is supposed to be safe and regulated in 2009-2010. http://www.cdc.gov/featu...es/dsfoodborneoutbreaks/ . Of those, around 1200 were hospitalized and 23 died. These are just the reported cases of food borne illness. We can't assume anything is completely safe in our industrialized, consumption based, profit driven global economy.

The most important question with regard to vaping is whether there is a second-hand effect on others. If not, then it should be legal to use anywhere. Regulation of the ingredients is of course welcome to ensure consistency and that unnecessary toxins aren't in the juice.

In any case, e cigs have been available in the US for at least six years now. Has anyone heard of a death directly connected to vaping?

A final note (and it goes to show how strong the stigma on smoking cigarettes is these days when you see peoples' responses to a survey in this article):

http://www.dailymail.co....estaurants-ban-them.html

Professor Robert West, from Cancer Research UK, said: ‘Cigarettes at the moment are killing in the region of six million people every year.

‘Can you imagine if every one of those cigarette smokers used an electronic cigarette instead - we would see the death toll drop.

‘You are talking about potentially saving millions of lives a year - a public health benefit we could hardly have dreamed of years ago.’

He added: 'While you get people say that we don’t know yet whether e-cigarettes are safe, the answer is we know what the ingredients are that are within them and we know that those are, nothing is perfectly safe, but compared with a cigarette they are 100 times safer if not more.'