Ashtray Blog: An Electronic Cigarette Blog

Have you managed to quit smoking with the e-cigarette? If so, scientists in America want to hear from you.

The American Council on Smoking and Health are looking for smokers who have managed to quit using the electronic cigarette.

Dispatch: A question for our Dispatch readers

ACSH staffers would like to know if you or anyone you know has been able to use electronic cigarettes to kick your cigarette habit. Please send your responses to morning@acsh.org or tweet it to @JeffACSH.

Source: ACSH

Elizabeth Whelan, President of the ACSH (see our brief biography of her on our e-cigarette people page) has spoken out before in favour of the e-cigarette, and criticised the FDA’s stance in a Washington Post article.

The e-cigarette may not currently be marketed as an NRT aid, and there is no long term study that offers proof that it can help smokers quit. However, research has shown that it can increase the level of nicotine in the blood and help alleviate the symptons of nicotine cessation. Research due to start later this year in New Zealand will test its ability to help smokers quit in the long term.

Update: ACSH have already a large response according to their website: E-Cigs Bring ACSH E-Harmony.

Apologies to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis – with two members of our team out on the road there hasn’t been much time for blogging recently! Which is a shame because, as always, there are interesting things happening…

Second Obesity More Dangerous than Second Hand Smoke

Grandad has been blogging about second-hand obesity – apparently you mustn’t get fat or those around you might catch your obesity! I was fascinated by the article which sparked Grandad off. In Anti-Smoking Tactics can Squeeze Obesity MD Thomas Gottfreid stated:

“A study of 35,561 spouses of smokers followed for 38 years published in the British Medical Journal in 2003 showed that second-hand smoke is an irritant, but does not cause life-threatening disease. Actually, “secondhand eating” may be more dangerous.”

This is doubly interesting because the doctor is no friend of smokers – it is clear that he applauds the use of anti-smoking tactics and indeed wants them to be replicated with fatty foods.

Vapers Network Daily

I found Grandad’s blog post on Vaper’s Network daily, a page on the Paper LI site created by Kate from Vaper’s Network – an excellent way to update yourself with what is going on in the vaping world.

Vape Fest

A vape fest is to be held in October of this year in Tamsworth. For details see the Vapefest site.

Smoking Everywhere

In the US Smoking Everywhere have been taken to court – not for selling the e-cigarette, but for not delivering it! The company has allegedly failed to deliver cigarettes, failed to refund payments and made unauthorized charges to credit cards.

I’ve been writing an article for another website on the best way to quit smoking (the Allen Carr method wins) and started looking up statistics for Chantix/Champix.

A search quickly throws About.com’s page on Chantix, which seems impressive. According to Terry Martin’s article on the subject users achieved a 22% abstinence rate. Terry didn’t mention the dangers of Chantix, which seems irresponsible (a 22% success rate would probably outweigh the dangers of the drugs, but people should at least have the all the information necessary to make an informed decision.)

Being aware of the fraud surrounding nicotine cessation aids (short term success acclaimed, long term failure ignored) I was a little bit suspicious. Was the cessation rate successful after 1 week, three months or one year? It is relatively easy to give up smoking for a short time, much harder to stay off cigarettes in the long term.In addition, a second reading revealed that only 2 out of 5 studies showed a 22% success rate. Surely one should show the figures as a whole?

As far as I can tell, the cessation rates were at one year. What some digging did reveal was that the trials were conducted by the manufacturer, that the candidates were handpicked, and that intensive counseling was provided to the people on the trial. According to WhyQuit, counselling alone can provide cessation rates of above 25%. There’s also a history of clinical trials proving to be more effective than actual usage. As Healthknot.com points out, trials conducted by manufacturers of nicotine gum produced success rates of 23-43%. However, when the same gum was sold over the counter, only a 7% cessation rate was achieved.

I’m also worried about the side-effects. Doctors promoting the product assure us there are inconsequential. However, with side effects including nausea, vomiting, depression, suicidal thoughts and suicide, I’d like to know exactly what percent of people using the drug experience side effects. I am also very worried by the comments in this (pro-chantix) article, where several people claimed that the depression and suicidal thoughts did not go away – even after usage of Chantix had stopped!

Related:

The Electronic Cigarette versus Chantix
Doctor Opposes Electronic Cigarette
Force Suicide Drugs on Mentally Ill Say Big Pharm Funded Scientists

The MHRA are supposed to be holding a consultation on what to do with the electronic cigarette.

Yet according to a leaked trading standards letter the decision has already been made – before the end of the consultation!

The letter, which was sent to us by Kate of Vaper’s Network, states:

“The outcome will be that of a date (yet to be announced) there will be a 21 days period and then these products will be outright banned in the UK, unless the traders apply for certification as a medical device from the MHRA. This process could be costly and expensive so it is expected that many traders will cease trading.”

Industry consultant Katherine Devlin has been in contact with the MHRA who confirmed that the letter was genuine. However, they maintain that the writer was mistaken.

I must admit, I am completely and utterly shocked by this letter. Not only does the letter suggest that the consultation has been a sham, but also that the MHRA plans to deliberately force UK traders out of existence by making a licensing procedure both expensive and complicated. And this is the same MHRA which admitted in their consultation document that electronic cigarettes could save hundreds of lives a year!

The MHRA were recently strongly criticized by the UK Regulatory Policy Committee on a number of grounds, including that there was insufficient evidence that the e-cigarette posed any danger to public health – see UK Policy Committee Slams MHRA Over E-Cigarette Consultation.

We were quite astonished to find out that until we sent the MHRA an electronic cigarette recently they had never actually seen the device they were trying to ban, let alone used or tested it.

The MHRA, it seems, are not alone in their neglect.

According to one source we have in America, it turned out that the FDA,  cited by the MHRA in their attempt to ban the e-cigarette,  were doing the same thing – their legal case was based upon a photograph!

There’s an interesting post from the Tobacco Harm Reduction blog which points out the absurdity on banning something because it won’t be used. (See It’s more about options given than options taken.)

The post follows an argument from Stanton Glantz that smokeless tobacco should be banned because it won’t become popular. (Stanton’s the one who thought Avatar should be banned because it has a cigarette in it).

I mention the post because it it reminds me of another argument from the anti-smoking movement.

They have argued that e-cigarettes should be banned on the basis that they do not contain enough nicotine and therefore won’t satisfy smokers.

There are several problems with this line of thought:

1. As we have pointed out before, part of the very success of the e-cigarette is that, unlike most smoking cessation aids, it replaces smoking stimuli rather than merely replacing nicotine (in a way that is often unsatisfying). In fact, some of our customers choose to buy our zero nicotine kit because they want to continue smoking but without the nicotine!

2. As the Tobacco Harm Reduction blog points out, banning something because it might not become popular is absurd – products should be allowed to find their own success or otherwise.

3. If just a few people switch from smoking to e-cigarettes, that would still be a benefit – and one which is not paid for by the state.

4. For thousands of smokers, e-cigarettes have already become a preferred option. We don’t know how many people have tried them and not switched (and it’s true that the market is dogged by low quality devices) but any look at the e-cigarette forum shows there are thousands of happy users.

5. Other arguments against the e-cigarette is that it contains nicotine, which some anti-smokers have suddenly decided is the root of all nicotine. (In contrast, the UK NHS states that nicotine does not cause smoking diseases – that’s according to the MHRA document which argues the e-cigarette can save lives and should therefore be regulated into non-existence.) So why is a smaller dose of nicotine suddenly a problem?

We remain convinced that the real reason for the opposition to the e-cigarette is a financial conflict of interest – for the e-cigarette is a very real threat to the profits of both the pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have told us in an email that they have no response to make to withering criticism by the Royal Policy Committee (RPC).

Last month the RPC, which was set up to improve policy making in the UK, strongly criticised the MHRA’s attempt to ban the electronic cigarette in the UK.

Nor did the MHRA have any knowledge of the million dollar trial of the e-cigarette being carried out in New Zealand in association with leading UK hospital Saint Barts. We will be sending them this information shortly.

The MHRA is currently attempting to impose new regulation on e-cigarettes which could lead to a defacto ban. The proposed ban is based on FDA evidence which has been discredited a US court of law.

For a long time we have avoided adding fruit flavours to our website.

With anti-smoking organisations in America accusing e-cigarette companies of targeting children with flavours (while at the same time promoting nicotine gum with flavours such as fruit chill), it seemed best to avoid.

A couple of things have made us change our mind.

One is that customers are making personal requests to supply flavours – we have just had one wholesaler order 10 cherry kits from us. Another is a recent review of our electronic cigarette from Underdogs Bite Upwards which points out that while our NJOY is easy to use and is closer to a real cigarette than other devices, we don’t have the same range of flavours as other websites.

So to keep the most important people (our customers!) happy, here are our newest flavours for the NJOY DUO electronic cigarette:

Cherry Flavored Refills
Apple Flavoured Cartridges
Strawberry Refills

These add to our existing collection of flavours:

Vanilla
Clove
Menthol
Traditional Tobacco Flavour

NJOY!

Having failed in court, the big-business funded anti e-cigarette lobby is trying to enforce a ban on e-cigarettes on a state by state basis in the US.

These bans are often pushed through with only a couple of days notice, which is why The Vaper’s Coalition is asking for help.

The Vaper’s Coalition is asking vapers’ to do the following:

1. Attend the meetings whenever possible.
2. Spread the word about each and every ban – forums, blogs, emails, you tube, twitter and every other way you can think of. (If you have a blog, why not write a similar post and link to the Vaper’s Coalition.)
3. Let the Vaper’s Coalition know about it – they have a list of proposed bans on their front page.
4. Send emails – Vaper’s Coalition has prefilled emails you can complete.

It’s going to be a tough battle – but you have the support of e-cigarette smokers in the UK!

For more information visit the Vapers’ Coalition!

The following is reproduced from an email by Bill Godshall of  Smokefree Pennsylvania:

Smokefree Pennsylvania, The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association (CASAA), National Vapers Club, Midwest Vapers Group and Drs. Michael Siegel and Joel Nitzkin filed an Amicus Brief with the DC Court of Appeals yesterday in support of litigation filed by electronic cigarette marketers Smoking Everywhere and NJOY against the US FDA.

The brief encourages the Appeals Court to uphold District Court Judge Richard Leon’s ruling in January that denied FDA authority to ban the import of electronic cigarettes by classifying them as unapproved drug devices (unless a company markets its products using therapeutic claims), and to prompt the FDA to promulgate reasonable and responsible regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products in accordance with the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act enacted by US Congress last year.

Attached are our Unopposed Motion to Participate, and Brief of Amici Curiae, as well as a similarly supportive Brief of Amicus Curiae filed yesterday by the Washington Legal Foundation.

Per the two Citizens Petitions below, please urge the FDA to reasonably regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products (instead of drugs or devices), and to truthfully inform smokers and the public that e-cigarettes (and other smokefree tobacc/nicotine products) are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Bill Godshall
smokefree@compuserve.com

The Citizens Petition by the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) urging the FDA to reclassify and regulate electronic cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) as tobacco products (instead of trying to ban the products by classifying them as drugs or devices) is at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0095

To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480aa84a7

Suggested talking points:
- since e-cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) are derived from tobacco, the FDA can legally reclassify and regulate them as “tobacco products”,
- by choosing to classify e-cigarettes as “drugs” or “devices”, the FDA was/is attempting to ban the products,
- hundreds of thousands of smokers already have significantly reduced their health risks by switching to e-cigarettes,
- if the FDA reasonably and responsibly regulated e-cigarettes as tobacco products, sales to minors would be prohibited, cigarette consumption/morbidity/mortality would decline more rapidly, and fewer taxpayers dollars would be spent by FDA protecting cigarette markets,
- in SE vs FDA, federal Judge Richard Leon has ruled that the FDA can regulate e-cigarettes as “tobacco products”, but not as “drugs” or “devices”,
- sales and use of e-cigarettes have continued to sharply increase despite the FDA’s ongoing attempt to ban the products,
- banning e-cigarettes would protect cigarette markets at the expense of consumer and public health,
- if applicable, describe your personal experience using e-cigarettes.

- – - -

The Citizens Petition by the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP) urging the FDA to clarify/correct inaccurate and misleading claims about electronic cigarettes (nicotine vaporizers) made at the FDA’s July 22, 2009 press conference, and to truthfully inform the public of existing evidence about the products is now available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2010-P-0093

To submit a comment urging supportive action by the FDA, go to http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480aa7cac

Suggested talking points:
- the FDA http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm grossly mispresented its own laboratory test findings on two brands of e-cigarettes http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
- in contrast to claims made at the FDA’s press conference, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes have ever harmed any user or nonuser, and there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are marketed to youth,
- the FDA failed to acknowledge any evidence (sent to the agency) that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous alternatives to tobacco cigarettes, and that thousands of e-cigarette users informed the agency they had quit smoking by switching to the products,
- cigarette smokers have a human right to truthful information about, and legal access to, less hazardous alternatives,
- FDA officials have an ethical duty to protect consumer health and to provide truthful health risk information,
- if applicable, describe your personal experience using e-cigarettes.