Ashtray Blog: An Electronic Cigarette Blog

That’s the news from the Velvet Glove Iron Fist blog.

Actually, our heading is a little misleading.

It should read: Not Persecuting Smokers is Worse than Beating Babies.

This is the news from the UK, where a British man has been jailed for six months for allowing people to smoke on his property.

Christoper Snowden then compared his sentence to what other people get in the UK:

Two Months for cutting up vulnerable people with razor blades;

Three Months for sexual offences against a woman and a child;

Six Months for repeatedly punching a baby in the face.

You can read the full post over at the Velvet Glove Iron Fist blog.

This is hardly breaking news – Kate from the Vaper’s forum mentioned it to me last week. But for those who might have missed it…

The author of a report that found no nicotine in two electronic cigarettes he tested has now found nicotine in a third model, a fact he mentioned in a post on the ecigarette forum.

The author, Tom Eissenberg, wrote:

At the suggestion of some of you, I purchased a KR808D-1 with various strength cartridges (Cowboy flavor). I used it last night (18 mg cartomizer) and tested my urine with Nicalert strips this morning. Result? 5/6. Clearly, this result is consistent with recent nicotine exposure.

You can read the full post here. (Thanks to Bill Godhsall and his tobacco harm reduction newsletter for this fascinating tidbit.)

We’ll be summarising Tom’s original research on our research page as soon as we have a minute!

MHRA/E Cigarette Update

We recently spoke to the MHRA on the topic of electronic cigarettes. It was hard to get much feedback, especially after we told them we were recording the call, as they simply repeated that we should put our comments in writing.

However, one of the most interesting points was that the MHRA want to regulate the electronic cigarette because this is the only way they can regulate the device. This seems to us like an inappropriate reason!

A second point which was made repeatedly is that nicotine is a medicine, and the MHRA state they have had legal advice that nicotine is a medicine.  Again, to us, this seems illogical, as tobacco contains nicotine.

As far as we understand, current plans do not include regulating cigarettes as a medicine.  It would be extremely unreasonable, as Judge Leon pointed out in his judgement against the FDA, (the Judge actually used the word “absurd”) to impose more onerous legislation upon safer alternatives such as the electronic cigarette than upon more dangerous products such as cigarettes.

There are three options – but one option is no option

It’s also very interesting – and a lesson in basic politics – to examine the way in which the MHRA made its proposal. (To understand the options, realise that the MHRA regards the electronic cigarettes as a nicotine cessation product rather than an alternative way to enjoy smoking. Also realise that unless electronic cigarettes are regulated in a very short period of time – under guidelines that have not yet been released – they will be illegal.)

In its guidelines the MHRA gave three options.

1. Make nicotine a medicine and make all unlincensed NCPs (nicotine cessation products) illegal within 21 days.

2. Make nicotine a medicine and make NCPs  illegal by June 2011.

3. Do nothing.

However, option 3 is not an option, as the MHRA makes clear:

“Option 3 warrants no further investigation as it is neither in the public health interest not commercial interest  to leave the current regulation of NCP/NRT untouched.”

In other words the options are make it a medicine or make it a medicine. Now that’s what I call freedom of choice!

Tobacco, on the other hand, is left freely available. At least until the MHRA point out that it contains nicotine and is, therefore, a medicine.

When we read the MHRA consultation document we were interested to note that they used the FDA press release (which  stated that electronic cigarettes contained toxins) as a justification for reclassifying the e-cigarette as a medicine.

“We know, from work done by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, that laboratory analysis of e-cigarette samples were found to contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, against which general product safety legislation could not protect. “

Source: MHRA Consultation Document (Also see our previous post: The FDA, The MHRA and the Electronic Cigarette.)

The use of the FDA’s propoganda (unlike the FDA research, the press release contained no mention of the quantity of the toxins, which were similar to those found in FDA approved nicotine cessation aids) is particularly interesting as the FDA’s position has recently been challenged in court.

We have recently summarised the judgement on our website – you can read the full summary as well as our thoughts on the implications here: FDA v NJOY & Smoking Everywhere: Court Ruling.

In addition to criticising the FDA’s “aggressive” attempts to extend the boundaries of its authority, the Judge also challenged the FDA’s health claims, stating:

I am not convinced that the threat to the public interest in general or to third parties in particular is as great as the FDA suggests.

The judge also viewed the suggestion that the device undergo more onerous regulation just because it was safer as “absurd”.

It will be interesting to see if the MHRA give the court ruling as much weight as they have given to the FDA’s propoganda!

I recently sent a link to a report to Christopher Snowdon, author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist.

Well, the contents of the report. The report, which is aimed at pharmeceutical companies, costs two and a half grand and neither of us felt like digging that deeply into our pockets.

Smart guy that he is, Snowdon noticed something which I didn’t.

I had focussed on this:

6.5.4.3 E-Cigarettes Will Revolutionise the Face of Tobacco Smoking and Could Pose a Threat to the Smoking Cessation Market

Which I had seen as explaining the financial support that pharmeceutical companies are giving to the anti-smoking groups who oppose the electronic cigarette.

However, in his blog post Snowdon  also pointed out this:

6.3.1 Drugs Do Not Replace the Tactile and Oral Sensations Obtained from Smoking

It may seem blatently obvious to anyone who has ever smoked, but government and big companies need to spend thousands of pounds to find out the blatently obvious!

Basically, cessation drugs can’t replace the hand movement of cigarette to mouth. (I could point out another study but do you really need me to?)

Which probably partially accounts the dire 5% success rate for nicotine cessation products.

And also why at least some smokers have managed to stay with the electronic cigarette, despite the fact that at least one study suggests it is not effective at delivering nicotine.

Cigarettes are safer than electronic cigarettes.

Electronic cigarette users should give up the toxin free devices which deliver nicotine in a water vapour and go back to the products that kill hundreds of thousands of smokers in the UK and America alone.

That’s the advice from the so-called anti-smoking lobby.

“… there is no evidence that they [the electronic cigarette] are safer, and because they are not regulated by the FDA, some are clearly much more dangerous,” shrieks one website, Center 4 Research, ignoring the fact that the FDA approved big pharm suicide drugs Chantix/Champix while attempting to ban the zero fatality electronic cigarette.

And, as we see in the latest article on our website, cigarette, these claims are unjustified, ignorant and based on a desire to see a nicotine free world.

The American Stop Smoking Society is at its again.

This time they have set up their own website.

They are repeating their claims that the electronic cigarette kills – fast.

And they are perpetuating the myth of fourth hand smoke.

More dangerously, they are offering to sell suicide kits to smokers, stating:

You can check out their website, which is eerily similar to ASH in design, here: The American Stop Smoking Society.

But please don’t buy any of their kits!

I have just completed an interview with Chris Snowden, author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist.

Velvet Glove Iron Fist is probably the most comprehensive book there is about the anti-smoking movement. It chronicles the anti-smoking movement from the first European discrimination against smoking – when the inquisition arrested one of Columbus’ crew – through the 19th century and 20th century (including Hitler’s obsession with fighting the weed) to the current day. It also shows how the movement has transformed from one with limited aims to the extremist movement it is now. It’s a fascinating read, and we really recommend you purchase it.

In the interview with Chris we discuss the anti-smoking movement, and some of their most extreme claims, for example that of third hand smoke (the idea that touching a smoked could kill you!) And, of course, we talk about the paradoxical opposition of some of the American anti-smoking groups opposition to the electronic cigarette – paradoxical, of course, because the electronic cigarette is both a solution for smokers who can’t quit and identical to the nicotine inhalers sold by pharmaceutical groups that fund these organisations.

Click here to read the full interview: Velvet Glove Iron Fist interview with Chris Snowden.

I was browsing the net when I came across a page about one of ASH’s more extreme press releases.

(As ASH has called for denial of health treatment of smokers, for children to be seperated from their parents and pushed for segregation in public places, it has to be pretty bad to be extreme for ASH!)

This press release called for smokers to be charged with the homicide of passive smokers.

“Action on Smoking and Health has decreed that exposing others to secondhand smoke in any circumstance, including in the home, should make all smokers liable to criminal prosecution for homicide with depraved indifference, punishable by death in areas of the United States.” (Source: Forces)

I immediately searched for the original release, only to find a blank page.

Smoking Akin to Deliberately Infecting People With Aids

We can get some of the contents from the Tobacco Analysis site;

“As the evidence that secondhand tobacco smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans each year multiplies, the potential for civil – and possibly even criminal – liability for subjecting other people to it grows, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America’s first antismoking organization.”

“He notes that criminal liability has been imposed upon people who, knowing that they have the AIDS virus, nevertheless expose others to it by having sexual intercourse with them, even though the risk that their sexual partner will actually come down with AIDS as the result of such exposure is quite small.” …

“At some point, deliberately and repeatedly subjecting another person to a substance the federal government has ruled to be the most deadly carcinogen to which we are exposed moves beyond mere negligence (the mere lack of sufficient care) and battery (which requires an intent to cause harm) to a depraved indifference to the consequences (the requirement for criminal homicide), says Banzhaf.” (Source: Tobacco Analysis Blog)

Professor Michael Siegel comprehensively destroys the argument, pointing out that the risk of someone dying from passive smoking is ‘exceedingly’ small.

So I wonder why the press release has gone?

Was it so provocative and extreme that even ASH had second thoughts? Did PR Inside remove it out of taste? Or is it just an error?

I’ve written to PR Inside to find out – it’ll be interesting to see their answer!

I recently read a great article on dumbing down films to reach more viewers.

In essence, the article talked about “how a nuanced, non-judgmental, socially aware drama about the Iraq war” was praised by critics , while the visually spectacular but rather dumb Avatar was watched by the whole world. (See Avatar Shows How Dumbing Down Works).

(I’m not personally knocking the film – dumb or not, I loved it.)

It made me think of our You Tube videos.

Views for these range from about 20 to over 60,000.

And just as with these articles, it is the dumb ones which get all the views.

Here’s a serious extract from our interview with Carl Phillips which had a massive 54 views:

Here, on the other hand, is a joke video which I made in a spare five minutes for April Fool’s day. This one has had more than 60,000 views. Rather worryingly, 80% of people commenting on the You Tube appear to be believe it was serious!

I have to get the next one in – dumb or not, it’s my favourite!

So, the lesson for us e-smokers if we want to get our message across is clear. Forget the interviews, forget the well-researched blog posts. Find a screwy old pair of glasses, put on a silly voice and say something sarcastic. And then blow your head off.