On his blog Sunday, Stan Glantz cited a new UK study as supporting the conclusion that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking among youth.
The study was a cross-sectional survey of nonsmoking 10-11 year-old children in Wales. They reported on their e-cigarette use and on their intentions to smoke in the future. The study found that users of e-cigarettes were significantly more likely to have intentions to smoke.
Specifically: "Having used an e-cigarette was associated with intentions to smoke (OR=3.21; 95% CI 1.66 to 6.23). While few children reported that they would smoke in 2 years’ time, children who had used an e-cigarette were less likely to report that they definitely would not smoke tobacco in 2 years’ time and were more likely to say that they might."
From these findings, Glantz concludes: "While a cross-sectional study, susceptibility to smoking is a well-validated measure of future smoking, so the results support the gateway effect."
Because this is a cross-sectional study, it is unable to determine the direction of causality. Which came first? The e-cigarette use or the intention to smoke?
While Glantz reports the result as e-cigarette users being more likely to have intentions to smoke, the results could just as easily presented as youth with intentions to smoke being more likely to try e-cigarettes.
Clearly, except for Stan, one cannot discern from this study whether youth who try e-cigarettes then develop an intention to smoke or whether youth with a predisposition to smoking are more likely to experiment with e-cigarettes.
That Stan draws a conclusion anyway suggests that he has come to a pre-determined conclusion and is twisting the data to support this conclusion.
However, it is entirely possible that what these results indicate is that e-cigarettes appeal much more to kids who are highly predisposed to try tobacco cigarettes. In fact, it is possible that by diverting these youth to e-cigarettes and their flavorings, e-cigarette experimentation may actually prevent youth from smoking. After all, once they try the sweet flavors of e-cigarettes, it would be extremely difficult to imagine them then transitioning to a Marlboro cigarette.
The rest of the story is that many e-cigarette opponents have drawn a pre-determined conclusion that e-cigarettes are evil and are therefore so biased that they are skewing the interpretation of scientific studies to support their pre-determined conclusions, even when the science does not support these conclusions.
This is another way of saying that ideology has taken over for science in the anti-smoking movement.
California Department of Public Health E-Cigarette Web Site is Full of Lies; Why Can't They Just Tell the Truth?
I never thought I would say this, but in March 2015, public health officials are telling more lies to the public about the health effects of smoking than the tobacco industry.
I took the time to review the web site that the California Department of Public Health put together about electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes and was appalled to find that the site is full of lies.
1. E-cigarettes are no healthier than tobacco cigarettes.
This is blatantly false. Farsalinos et al. published a paper just today showing that the levels of TSNAs in e-cigarettes are two to three orders of magnitude lower than in tobacco cigarettes. Polosa et al. have shown that switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes leads to dramatic improvement in respiratory symptoms and lung function. The scientific evidence is overwhelming: cigarette smoking is far more harmful than vaping. There really is no question about this. The California Department of Public Health is disseminating a blatant lie.
2. E-cigarettes turn kids into addicts.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this contention. In fact, the existing evidence shows that e-cigarettes are much less addictive than real cigarettes and that their addictive potential is more comparable with nicotine replacement therapy. Despite the dramatic increase in e-cigarette experimentation among youth, there is no evidence that there is any substantial proportion of these youth who have become e-cigarette addicts. The evidence shows, on the contrary, that most youth use is social use and that a pattern of addictive use of these products has not yet appeared among adolescents.
3. E-cigarettes are more harmful than real cigarettes because they contain more particles.
This is a bizarre conclusion that is completely false. Asthma inhalers deliver numerous particles to the lungs as well, but that doesn't mean that puffing on an inhaler is more dangerous than smoking. The statement is not only a lie, but is an embarrassment to science itself.
4. Vaping causes asthma attacks.
There is no evidence that vaping contributes to asthma exacerbation. On the contrary, asthmatic smokers who switch to e-cigarettes have been found to experience a significant reduction in their respiratory symptoms and an improvement in their lung function. Rather than exacerbating asthma, switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes greatly improves asthma.
5. E-cigarettes cause heart attacks.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that e-cigarettes have ever caused any individual to suffer a heart attack.
6. Vaping causes as much lung inflammation as smoking.
There is no evidence to support this. On the contrary, while smoking causes enough inflammation to obstruct air flow in the lungs, vaping has been shown not to cause obstruction that is detectable through spirometry.
7. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin.
This is an absurd and false assertion. Nicotine itself is certainly not as addictive as heroin. When was the last time you saw a nicotine patch user who was hopelessly addicted to the patch? It is smoking that is perhaps as addictive as heroin, not nicotine. Everything about the smoking experience contributes to its strong addictive power, including the way the nicotine is delivered and the behavioral, social, and physical stimuli associated with the behavior.
Why can't the California Department of Public Health simply tell the truth?
Probably because they realize they don't have a leg to stand on. Almost every reputable scientist - and even the tobacco companies themselves - know that smoking is certainly more hazardous than vaping, which involves no tobacco and no combustion. But that message is not consistent with the ideology that the California DPH apparently holds. So rather than abandon that ideology, they chose instead to lie.
The overwhelming scientific evidence that switching from smoking to vaping results in dramatic improvement in respiratory symptoms and lung function is also inconsistent with the health department's apparent ideology. So they chose to lie about that too.
Demonizing nicotine is apparently part of the health department's ideology. So instead of telling the truth - that smoking is as addictive as heroin - they lie and tell the public that nicotine by itself is more addictive than heroin.
Apparently, it is also not consistent with the health department's ideology that vaping is actually less destructive to the airways than smoking. So despite the evidence that vaping causes no observable changes in spirometric measures of lung function, the health department chose to lie and tell the public that vaping actually causes the same amount of lung inflammation than smoking. That's complete rubbish.
There is no evidence, nor any reason to believe that e-cigarettes cause heart disease leading to heart attacks. But that's not a good sound bite when you're trying to demonize e-cigs, so instead, the health department chose to lie and tell the public that e-cigarettes do cause heart attacks.
To be clear, I fully support measures to educate kids about the truth about e-cigarettes. I do think there is a need for educational campaigns that inform kids that e-cigarettes, while safer than cigarettes, do not merely deliver harmless water vapor. However, why do we need to lie to get this message across?
Is there no room for the truth in the tobacco control movement anymore?
Under the guise of acting to "protect the children," the Washington State Governor and legislature are poised to protect cigarette profits at the expense of the public's health.
A new bill, introduced last week in the House, would impose the strictest regulations on e-cigarettes of any state in the country. In addition to banning the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, requiring labeling changes, and requiring child-proof packaging of e-liquids (which are reasonable), the bill would also: (1) ban flavorings - other than tobacco and menthol; (2) ban online e-cigarette sales; and (3) impose a 95% tax on e-cigarettes and all e-cigarette accessories (e.g., batteries); and (4) require the name and address of every purchaser of e-cigarettes to be recorded and saved for five years.
This is one of the worst examples of window dressing that I've ever seen in tobacco control. The legislation makes it look like these politicians are deeply concerned about the health of Washington's children, but in reality, it shows a lack of courage to actually take on Big Tobacco and confront the real problem causing the prospects for early death and chronic disease among children in Washington state.
If the Washington governor and legislature were truly concerned about the health of the state's children, they would immediately impose a 95% tax on real cigarettes, require real cigarette purchasers' names and addresses to be recorded and saved for five years, and establish a cigarette tax revenue-funded comprehensive statewide tobacco prevention program accompanied by an aggressive anti-smoking media campaign.
Instead, these politicians are going after an easy target - the vaping industry - so that they can make it appear that they really care about children's health.
But I call baloney on them.
This legislation is a dream come true for cigarette companies, cigarette sales, and cigarette profits in the state of Washington. The fake cigarettes are being treated far more harshly than the real ones, which are the ones actually killing people in Washington and actually threatening the lives and health of Washington adolescents.
Why should the name of every e-cigarette purchaser need to be recorded, while anyone can just walk up to a counter at the local convenience store and purchase a pack of cigarettes without giving out their name or address?
Why should the tax on e-cigarettes be massively raised, while the tax on real cigarettes remain unchanged?
Let's be very clear. This bill is going to do very little good, but a lot of harm.
First of all, while e-cigarette use among youth is definitely concerning, there is no evidence that it is actually causing any significant harm. The bulk of the current evidence suggests that electronic cigarettes are deterring youth away from smoking real cigarettes, which in the long run may actually have a positive effect on their health. Moreover, there is no evidence that youth, even those who are "current" e-cigarette users, use them any more than occasionally. To be sure, some of the measures in the proposed legislation, such as its restrictions on the sale of e-cigarettes to minors and its requirements for child-proof packaging make sense. However, the rest of the legislation is dramatic overkill which is going to all but destroy the e-cigarette industry in Washington.
With the banning of flavors, most vape shops will be forced to go out of business. With the banning of internet sales, all vaping businesses without brick-and-mortar sales will be forced out of business. Not only will this legislation have a devastating financial impact on small businesses, but it will also significantly harm the public's health.
Why? Because it will undoubtedly make it more difficult and less enticing for smokers to try to quit smoking. E-cigarettes have become one of the primary methods by which many smokers try to quit. By greatly limiting the availability of these products, greatly increasing their price, and taking away all the interesting flavors, the incentive for smokers to quit via electronic cigarettes will be all but completely destroyed. As a result, smoking in Washington will increase, as will the diseases and deaths that are associated with cigarette consumption. Many vapers will simply return to smoking once their favored products are taken off the market. The effects on the public's health will be stark and immediate.
The rest of the story is that Washington politicians pushing this legislation are essentially calling for a ban on all existing electronic cigarettes. Why? Because every electronic cigarette contains flavors. In fact, the presence of flavors is the only distinguishing characteristic of different brands of e-liquids or cartridges.
That's it! That's basically all there is.
Virtually every electronic cigarette consists of nicotine, PG and/or VG, and flavorings, plus or minus a little water and perhaps citric acid. It is the flavor that makes the brand. In most cases, even the "tobacco"-flavored electronic cigarettes contain flavorings.
It's easy to see that a ban on flavors is essentially a ban on electronic cigarettes. It would ban virtually every electronic cigarette currently on the market. Moreover, it would mean that there could only be one type of electronic cigarette liquid, which would have to contain just nicotine and propylene glycol and/or glycerine, and there would be no way for different liquids to distinguish themselves. The product would completely lose its appeal to smokers and the cigarette market would be protected forever. Menthol, mint, and wintergreen would be the only way to distinguish between e-cigarette brands. Thus, there would really be only four possible e-cigarette "brands" available. This would completely undermine the market and remove any competitive advantage over tobacco cigarettes.
Such a regulatory action would remove the ability of companies to market their products and would eliminate the taste and appeal of the product, handing the entire cigarette category over to Big Tobacco.
In my opinion, a ban on flavors in electronic cigarettes would completely destroy the electronic cigarette market. If the Washington legislature is going to ban the flavors in e-cigarettes, then it might as well just ban the product entirely.
Why would these public officials support an action that will end the great electronic cigarette experiment and permanently hand the entire cigarette market over to Big Tobacco?
If any of my readers can find out, please let me know because it is baffling to understand why public officials would want to protect cigarettes from the most serious competition they have ever faced. If this flavoring ban is enacted, the Washington legislature will have the rare role of being the hero of the cigarette promotion movement.
Recently, the FDA announced that in compliance with a court ruling, it would re-constitute its Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) by eliminating members with significant conflicts of interest by virtue of their previous financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
Apparently, the four TPSAC members who were removed from the Committee (or who had already left the Committee) were Jonathan Samet, Claudia Barone, Joanna Cohen, and Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin.
In response, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Dr. Stan Glantz blasted the FDA for complying with the court decision. Apparently, they would like to see scientists with Big Pharma conflicts of interest sitting on a federal advisory panel that makes policy regarding the very drugs produced by these companies.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids wrote: "It is deeply troubling that the FDA today removed several extraordinarily qualified members of its Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) based on a misguided and overreaching court ruling that is under appeal. The FDA’s action demonstrates that the court decision and FDA’s overly cautious interpretation of that decision will deprive the agency of advice from many of the nation’s foremost and most credible scientific experts and undermine the FDA’s ability to do its job. It is essential that the FDA both aggressively pursue its appeal of the court decision in question and, in the interim, apply that ruling in a way that does not impair its tobacco advisory committee."
Glantz wrote: "Last week the FDA fired or forced the resignations of several highly qualified and respected scientists from its Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee because of an overly cautious reaction to a misguided court decision Like its decision to discount the health benefits of reduced smoking by the "lost pleasure" smokers experience when they stop or do not start smoking, this action sets a terrible precedent not only for tobacco control but public health in general."
Both the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Dr. Glantz appear to have a misunderstanding of federal law. According to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, all federal advisory panels (including TPSAC) must be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed," and its members cannot have severe financial conflicts of interest such that the committee's assessments, reports, or recommendations and decisions will be "inappropriately influenced . . . by any special interest."
Following this law, a D.C. district court ruled that the presence of the above members of TPSAC violated federal law because these members had significant financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma.
It is essential that federal expert and advisory panels not contain members with significant conflicts of interest with corporations such as pharmaceutical companies because these conflicts of interest may influence, or have the appearance of influencing the recommendations and decisions of these panels. Do we really want a scientist who worked for Pfizer to make decisions about the use of a drug produced by Pfizer? Do we want a researcher who received grant funding from GlaxoSmithKline to make recommendations regarding whether a drug manufactured by that very company should be approved?
Both the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Dr. Glantz appear to misunderstand the importance of eliminating these conflicts of interest. Their arguments are based on the contention that the scientists in question were of the highest integrity and that they could contribute significantly to the panel. But it is not the integrity nor the potential contributions of these scientists that is in question. The only thing in question is whether they have conflicts of interest that, according to federal law, should preclude them from serving on a federal panel that will likely make decisions that affect the financial status of the very companies with whom these scientists have had financial relationships.
Dr. Samet: According to the original complaint filed by Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds: "During the last decade, Dr. Samet has received grant support for research and writing from GSK on at least six occasions, including in 2010. In addition, he formerly led the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, which is [was] funded by GSK and Pfizer. Moreover, until 2009, Dr. Samet received regular honoraria from Pfizer for his service on the Pfizer Global Tobacco Advisory Board."
Dr. Barone: According to her C.V., Dr. Barone and two of her colleagues received a $400,000 educational grant from Pfizer, covering the period 2010-2013.
Dr. Cohen: According to her C.V., Dr. Cohen works for the Institute for Global Tobacco Control. She is now the director. The problem is that the Institute for Global Tobacco Control apparently received funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. However, that funding appears to have been received before Dr. Cohen came to the Institute. Thus, I cannot understand in this case why Dr. Cohen should be precluded from serving on TPSAC.
Dr. Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin: According to a 2011 C.V., Dr. Krishnan-Sarin received a GRAND award from Pfizer covering the years 2011-2013. Also listed is Pfizer funding for a clinical trial conducted in 2003-2004.
While Glantz and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids argue that the removal of conflicted members will impede the work of the FDA, the assurance that federal expert panels and advisory boards be free from financial conflicts of interest actually enhances the work of these bodies by eliminating a major potential source of bias and by ensuring that there is no appearance of a conflicted panel.
In summary, I see no reason that Dr. Cohen should not be able to serve on the TPSAC panel. However, the other three members do have significant financial conflicts of interest that should preclude them from serving on TPSAC.
Finally, this has nothing to do with the integrity, character, or potential value to the committee of the conflicted scientists. The only issue here is the conflicts of interest.
In a press release issued last week, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has called on state and local governments throughout the country to raise the legal purchase age for cigarettes from age 18 to age 21. This recommendation comes on the heels of an Institute of Medicine report which concluded that raising the legal age to 21 nationally would reduce smoking prevalence by 12% and smoking-related deaths by 10%.
In urging states and localities to raise the legal purchase age to 21, the Campaign cited a 1986 Philip Morris document which "made it clear decades ago that the industry knew a higher age of sale would hurt the peddling of its deadly products. “Raising the legal minimum age for cigarette purchaser to 21 could gut our key young adult market (17-20),” that report noted."
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids writes: "The ages of 18 to 21 are a critical period when many smokers move from experimental smoking to regular, daily use. While half of adult smokers become daily smokers before 18, four out of five do so before they turn 21. Increasing the tobacco sale age to 21 will help prevent these young people from ever starting to smoke."
So how is the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids being disingenuous?
What they fail to tell you in this press release is that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids actively prevented the FDA from raising the age of cigarette sales nationally to anything above 18! The Campaign agreed to this restriction - which completely ties the FDA's hands - in order to appease Philip Morris when it was negotiating the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
So the rest of the story is that it is thanks to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids that the FDA does not have the authority to raise the legal sales age for cigarettes. And this is the reason why the Campaign is calling for action at the state and local level, rather than at the national level. Given that the FDA supposedly has regulatory jurisdiction over cigarettes, that agency should obviously have the authority to regulate the age of sale for tobacco products. But the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids took away that authority in order to appease Philip Morris, the very company whose document the Campaign cites in its press release as opposing such a move because it would significantly hurt its sales.
The truth of the matter is that in appeasing Philip Morris and tying the hands of the FDA, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids did more to protect cigarette sales than anything Big Tobacco could have dreamed for. Now, instead of the FDA being able to respond to the IOM report by increasing the legal age to 21, the Campaign has to try to go state-by-state and city-by-city to convince hundreds of localities to enact such a measure. Obviously, a measure like this is only going to be feasible and effective if it is enacted at the federal level. It was the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which made that an impossibility.
More than any other group (with the exception of Philip Morris), the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has helped to protect cigarette sales and make sure that the next generation will not be tobacco-free. Yet they have the gall to pretend to be a great protector of children's health, while hiding from the public the fact that they were the ones who actually prevented the next generation from being tobacco-free by ensuring that the age of cigarette sales could not be raised to 21 nationally.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids could not be more disingenuous if it tried.
In a position statement on electronic cigarettes published by the Canadian Pediatric Society, Dr. Richard Stanwick, its past president, opines that electronic cigarettes are a "gateway" to smoking that will renormalize smoking by "representing smoking as a socially acceptable public practice."
Later in the same statement, Dr. Stanwick complains that "Both the size and value of the e-cigarette industry are expanding rapidly. Currently estimated to be worth more than $2 billion in the United States alone, e-cigarette sales are expected to surpass conventional cigarette sales over the next decade."
Dr. Stanwick goes on to state: "Health advocates have achieved truly historic successes in curbing tobacco use ... through a variety of effective public policy interventions. E-cigarettes have the potential to undermine this framework."
This same argument has been repeated by many groups and advocates that oppose electronic cigarettes. And the rest of the story is that the argument is ridiculous. It makes no sense, is illogical, and is internally inconsistent.
If electronic cigarette sales surpass conventional cigarette sales over the next decade, as Dr. Stanwick seems to predict, then electronic cigarettes will go down in history as the single most effect intervention ever to reduce cigarette smoking. Imagine: a 50% drop in cigarette consumption. That would be an unprecedented public health victory. Never before has any public health or anti-smoking intervention resulted in a smoking reduction of that magnitude.
Moreover, if cigarette sales are cut in half, then smoking will be completely denormalized. Nothing denormalizes smoking more than having very few people smoking.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that electronic cigarettes are a huge gateway to smoking that is going to renormalize smoking and at the same time acknowledge that electronic cigarette sales are going to reduce cigarette sales in half over the next decade. The argument makes no sense and is internally inconsistent. If electronic cigarettes are so successful as a public health intervention that they take over half of the overall cigarette market, it will be a tremendous public health victory of historic proportions that will have greatly reduced cigarette use, denormalized smoking, and saved lives.
This story demonstrates that many electronic cigarette opponents have lost the ability to think straight. They are so blinded by ideology that they seem incapable of making a coherent argument. They are talking complete nonsense.
And in fact, I believe that the reason so many e-cigarette opponents are talking such nonsense is that they don't have a leg to stand on. They can't rely on the actual scientific evidence and on coherent arguments because the facts do not support the contention that electronic cigarettes are renormalizing smoking. So they are left with crafting nonsense arguments that fly in the face of their own lack of logic.
The truth is that electronic cigarettes do appear to be a gateway: a gateway away from smoking and towards vaping. This means that electronic cigarettes are denormalizing smoking. The only thing electronic cigarettes may be normalizing is vaping.
The argument that electronic cigarettes are renormalizing smoking makes no sense, is unsupported by evidence, and should be completely abandoned before any more damage is done to the public's health.
I have waited a long time for this, but it has finally happened. A public policy maker has become the first to publicly embrace vaping as a public health strategy to combat cigarette smoking. Alameda County Board of Supervisors member Nate Miley was present at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of a new vaping store called Ready, Set, Vape in Castro Valley.
Supervisor Miley noted the controversy over e-cigarettes, but emphasized that he could not help but support an intervention that is helping smokers get off deadly cigarettes.
My relationship with Supervisor Miley goes back to 1992, when - as an Oakland City Council member - Nate played the lead role in spearheading the campaign to enact a smoke-free restaurant ordinance for the city of Oakland.
I already had an incredible amount of respect for Nate Miley, but this action increases that respect and appreciation even further. It was a courageous action and a true sign of leadership.
Finally, a public policy maker is willing to stand up against the destruction and deaths being caused by cigarette smoking. The FDA might not be willing. The CDC might not be willing. State health departments might not be willing. But Nate Miley is. Congratulations to him!
The Texas E-Cigarette and Vaping Association was kind enough to conduct an interview with me on electronic cigarettes. You can listen to the interview here.
A study published in journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology reports that the two brands of electronic cigarettes tested - Blu and Sky Cigs - contain levels of hazardous chemicals that are almost all indistinguishable from levels in ambient air. The few chemicals that were detected were present at levels between 50 and 900 times lower than that in cigarette smoke.
"The e-cigarettes contained and delivered mostly glycerin and/or PG and water.
Aerosol nicotine content was 85% lower than the cigarette smoke nicotine.
The levels of HPHCs in aerosol were consistent with the air blanks.
Mainstream cigarette smoke HPHCs (∼3000 μg/puff) were 1500 times higher than e-cigarette HPHCs.
No significant contribution of tested HPHC classes was found for the e-cigarettes."
The authors conclude that: "The deliveries of HPHCs tested for these e-cigarette products were similar to the study air blanks rather than to deliveries from conventional cigarettes; no significant contribution of cigarette smoke HPHCs from any of the compound classes tested was found for the e-cigarettes. Thus, the results of this study support previous researchers’ discussion of e-cigarette products’ potential for reduced exposure compared to cigarette smoke."
This study adds to the abundant and growing body of evidence that electronic cigarettes are orders of magnitude safer than tobacco cigarettes and suggests that brands of e-cigarettes that do not overheat the e-liquid may be associated with very minor absolute health risks.
This should put an end to the assertions of many e-cigarette opponents that electronic cigarettes are not any safer than tobacco cigarettes. It exposes those public statements as being lies.
This research also demonstrates how misguided the FDA is in its scientific judgment. Despite all of the evidence, with numerous studies demonstrating results similar to those above, with studies showing rapid clinical improvement in smokers who switch to e-cigarettes, and with studies showing that the acute cardiovascular and pulmonary effects of smoking due not occur with vaping, the FDA is not sure that smoking is not any more hazardous than vaping.
In the deeming regulation proposal, the FDA stated: "Many consumers believe that e-cigarettes are "safe" tobacco products or are "safer" than cigarettes. FDA has not made such a determination and conclusive research is not available." Clearly, the FDA does not believe that there is sufficient evidence at the present time to conclude that cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than vaping.
Furthermore, one of the problems noted in the deeming regulations was the fact that: "The vast majority of the respondents who were aware of these products indicated that they believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes...". Once again, the FDA is stating that smoking may not be any more hazardous than vaping.
Combined with the existing body of scientific evidence, this study blows out of the water the argument of e-cigarette opponents that we have no idea how hazardous vaping is and that we can't be sure that vaping is significantly safer than smoking.
Nevertheless, I'm sure electronic cigarette opponents will continue to make these assertions because they are being primarily motivated by ideology and not by science.
In an article published in the Ft. Wayne (IN) Health Sentinel, the executive director of the Indiana Youth Institute was quoted as stating: "If you used the entire (e-liquid) canister at one time, it would be the same as smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes at one time."
While it may be true that vaping one full cartridge of e-liquid is approximately equivalent to smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes in terms of nicotine intake, it is certainly not true that vaping one cartridge of e-liquid is the same as smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes. While vaping one cartridge will expose you to nicotine, propylene glycol and/or glycerin, flavorings, and potentially to some by-products such as formaldehyde and acrolein, smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes will expose you to more than 10,000 chemicals, including more than 60 known carcinogens, as well as to radioactivity. So the statement that vaping one cartridge is the same as smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes is blatantly false.
Once again, The Rest of the Story has caught an e-cigarette opponent lying about the relative health risks of smoking and vaping. This lie is a particularly damaging one because it insinuates that smoking is no more hazardous than inhaling vapor from a device which contains no tobacco and involves no combustion. The statement seriously undermines the public's appreciation of the severe hazards of cigarette smoking.
Why is it that e-cigarette opponents are apparently forced to lie in order to support their opposition to these products? The answer, I think, is that the truth simply does not support their position. The truth - based on current scientific evidence - is that e-cigarettes are helping millions of smokers in the U.S. to either quit or significantly cut down on the amount they smoke. And they are doing this without undermining smoking cessation, without causing ex-smokers to return to smoking, and without serving as a gateway to youth smoking.
Therefore, in order to craft a tenable position against e-cigarettes, its opponents have no choice but to fabricate evidence, to mislead the public, and to lie in their public statements. Telling the truth just doesn't provide support for their position; thus, the need to distort the science and/or lie to the public.