As more city and state legislatures continue to put more lives at risk by inappropriately and dangerously restricting e-cig vaping in the same way they appropriately restrict cigarette smoking, more and more professionals are speaking out against such ill-advised legislation.
On am1150 in Kelowna, British Columbia last week, Dr. Christopher Nichols of California State University-Chico talked about exactly that.
Nichols, who is identified by the program’s host, Phil Johnson, as “a chemistry professor who analyzes the components of compounds,” offers sober points during the short interview (posted in full below) which, if heard by many, could serve to help save millions of lives.
After describing the differences between the dangers of smoking tobacco and the lack of dangers in regard to the vapor produced by an e-cig device, Nichols notes how those nearby someone who is vaping needn’t be concerned, even as the anti-smoking industry continues to offer deadly disinformation about e-cigs.
“Second-hand vape has zero things to worry about,” he explained. “If students in my classroom were puffing on e-cigs, I would let them be. I don’t honestly know what the rules are here on my campus, they probably restrict it, but there’s no scientific reason to do that”…
Indeed, the “scientific” basis on which vaping has so far been restricted, frankly, simply doesn’t exist. Restricting the use of vaping devices results only in more people continuing to smoke tobacco rather than turning to vaping to help stop a deadly habit that kills almost half a million people in America alone each year.
The propaganda offered as “science” by those banning e-cigs turns out to be pseudo-science at best or, more accurately, not scientific at all. Most of the misguided arguments appear to be based on claims of those who either haven’t bothered to read the scientific facts behind vaping, or who have, but simply prefer to lie to the public about it either because they believe vaping “normalizes” a similar-but-totally-different behavior (smoking) they had hoped to have eradicated or — more cynically — because hundreds of millions of dollars are made each year by the pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma) which continue raking in enormous profits as a government-sanctioned nicotine industry (even as their nicotine products have been found to be no more and often less effective for smoking cessation than vaping products)…
“Recent surveys show that the number of smokers who actually fear ecigs more than the deadly, addictive cigarettes that are slowly killing them is rising. The anti-harm-reduction propagandists spread fear of ‘second-hand vapor’ and ‘kid-friendly flavors’ and a conspiracy by Big Tobacco to entice and addict young people, via ecigs, to smoking — the ‘gateway effect'”, explained Dr. Gilbert Ross in The Hill recently. “The only problem with these alarmist scenarios: all the evidence contradicts it.”
“I would much rather be sitting on an airplane next to a guy vaping, then a cigarette addict who can’t smoke for six hours and is freaking out,” Nichols explains in the radio segment.
He says that his students who vape seem to be taking cues from the way others regard cigarette smoking, even though cigarette smoke produced by burning tobaccos is completely different than the vapor produced by an e-cig: “I think that many of the students are kind of following the lead that people may not want to see them vaping in class because they think — incorrectly — that what they’re doing is akin to cigarette smoke and that bystanders need to be worried. So, at least the students are sort of taking the initiative and erring on the side of caution, even though, quite frankly, there’s nothing at all to worry about.”
That fear (or shame) factor — one that is being dangerously and disingenuously exploited by vaping opponents (ironically, the same community that claims to give a damn about the actual dangers of tobacco, even as they make it harder for people to quit smoking by restricting the use of e-cigs) — serves only to keep people smoking, rather than quitting by moving to e-cigs. Vaping has been found now in several studies to be among the most effective tools for quitting, even more so than Big Pharma’s nicotine products such as patches, gums and, yes, inhalers! (Full Disclosure: Vaping has certainly helped me to quit smoking, literally overnight, after decades of being a very heavy smoker.)
“Treating e-cigarettes like normal cigarettes is making an apple look like an orange,” says Nichols, who goes on to compare nicotine’s addictive properties (if addiction is seen as a concern) to the similarly addictive properties of caffeine even though, as he correctly observes, Starbucks and many others happily sell it to our children everyday without controversy…
Here’s the full segment from Phil Johnson’s show last week on Kelowna’s am1150…
Wikipedia’s article on e-cigarettes is here.
I am a pipe and cigar smoker, one hopes that after this affair, that some state legislator,dose’ntED4 more smoking restrictions for tabacco. Most peoples d’;nt know that cigarretes, and now e cigars, are one thing, pipes and cigars aare another. Please for the public;s sake, educate youre self on this subject!
Nice find and thanks for posting. It’s so good to hear proper scientists coming out in favour of vaping.
Ingesting nicotine and propylene glycol couldn’t do any harm, could it? After all, reading the fine print on the nicotine package at the garden store couldn’t be scary, could it?
Brad:
I was surprised at your article. Prior to reading it I had already downloaded the California Department of Health’s report on E-cigarettes that was issued in January this year. Concurrently they had issued a Health Advisory on January 28, 2015; Electronic Cigarettes: A summary of the Public Health Risks and Recommendations for Health Care Professionals.
Contrary to the claims of the chemistry professor that the second-hand emissions of e-cigs have “zero things to worry about”, this and other reports find there are reasons for concern.
I would recommend people read the Health Advisory and the Report. Perhaps you can link to them on your website.
While I am glad you have quit “smoking”, it is unclear if you have been able to wean yourself from the addiction to nicotine.
There is currently no standardization in content or labeling of e-cigarettes. That lack of uniformity in contents is one of the difficulties in making any blanket statements such as made by the professor. It also is a factor in testing the aerosols ingested by the users, but also what is contained in the areosols released into the atmosphere upon their exhalation.
Studies do show that the aerosols have been found to contain at least ten chemicals that meet the Prop 65 requirements for labeling, including acetaldehyde, benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, isoprene, lead, nickel, nicotine, n-nitrosonornicotine, and tuolene.
I will be approaching my city council, and legislators, to impose the same restrictions on vaping as there is on smoking. I do not want to breath in those chemicals. I also want clear labeling so those who do use e-cigarattes will be able to make a clear choice on what they are ingesting.
Jody @ 5 said:
Those are largely written by Stan Glantz. His “work” on this issue is both legendary, and largely horseshit. If you click on a few of the links I have in the article above, some of them have to do with Glantz, who does all this on behalf of CA.
Check my links above and/or just Google him. You should pretty quickly seem what I mean. If you have specific Qs, however, I can try to speak to them when I have a bit more time.
The other stuff you cite is largely based on that. I have read the ACTUAL reports the facts you cite are said to come from. They either don’t say what Glantz says about them, or the studies themselves are nonsense. For example, the one concerning “formaldehyde” is based on a machine literally burning the e-juice to a higher level than anyone could ever stand to vape. If your juice is burning, as opposed to vaporizing, you are doing it wrong. You’d know that immediately, because you (unlike the testing machines they use in the lab) would never be able to enhale it. Again, can point you to more info on that when I have more time. Some of this is in my links above.
The other chemicals you cite are often found at higher levels in plain old air. If one bothers to read the actual studies (versus Glantz’ bullshit about them, as reprinted by the state of CA), one finds that the actual studies themselves note that chemical levels cited are of no danger whatsoever.
That’s ashame, since those restrictions will result in needless deaths of millions. There is no evidence — zero — that any e-cig vapor has ever harmed anybody, unlike cigarettes. You’ve known me and my work long enough to know that I don’t toss out bullshit that I haven’t looked into. Please look harder. The CA stuff is, literally, junk science and/or lies.
Nobody is really against that. However, they are already clearly labeled for the most part. We know what’s in the juice. Food safe propelyn glycol (same stuff that used in all sorts of foods, lotions, chapsticks, fog machines and, yes, nicotine inhalers sold by Big Pharma!), vegetable glycerine, flavoring, nicotine (optionally, and not harmful above and beyond the way caffeine is harmful to those with heart probs, high blood pressure, etc.) That’s it. And none have been shown to be harmful.
On the other hand, we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what is in cigarettes. Unlike e-liquid, deadly cigarettes include NO labeling. None. Not even how much nicotine is in them.
I am doing more research, and there are very recent studies that do show that e-cigs do contain harmful substances. The levels are less than found in cigarettes, but that is not the issue I raised. The issue is whether e-cigarettes should be used in places where cigarettes could not be smoked.
I am well aware of the dangers of smoking, having watched my father, brother, and first wife die of multiple cancers from smoking. My wife was 44, brother 51, and father 59 years old. Unfortunately people make poor choices, and many times, such as in smoking, they impose those choices on those around them.
Their children have no choice of being subjected to second and third hand exposure to the dangers.
If a person chooses to use e-cigs as a way of quitting smoking and reducing their own and others exposure to the dangers of smoking, I fully support that. The issue is someone imposing their choice upon another person. When in an enclosed space others are exposed to what a person exhales, and that then crosses the line of personal sovereignty.
I have asthma and am very careful to reduce my exposure to airborne contaminants as much as possible.
I am not against the use of e-cigarettes, but I do claim the right not to have to breathe in the exhaled by-products of e-cigarettes.
A recent policy statement by the Journal of Clinical Oncology (March 10, 2015):
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content...8/952.full.pdf
Their Summary provides very good suggestions.
Study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (March 24, 2015):
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/4/3439/htm
My wanting regulations to protect my right to not breathe in someone’s exhalations will not cause their death. They are causing their own death.