Excellent Electric Cigarette Information!

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. — As more cities ban smoking in restaurants and bars, there is a newer product to the United States that makers claim you can still smoke indoors. It’s under fire from cities across the country, the Food and Drug Administration and a metro parent.

If you’ve been to the mall lately, you may have seen a kiosk selling electronic cigarettes. We’ve found the kiosks at Independence Center and Oak Park mall.

If you walk past the kiosk at Oak Park, a salesperson will ask if you smoke.

At Smoke51 we were shown a product that closely resembled a real cigarette. It comes with a battery and filter and even comes in flavors.

“There’s a heating element that steams water, nicotine, and flavor so you’re going to see me blow out smoke but it’s actually steam or water vapor,” the salesman said.

There are many questions about how this product is marketed.

The Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) tells its members they can’t make health claims, cannot sell to minors, and they should not make cessation claims.

“We do not market it as a smoking cessation device or healthy alternative. We market it as an alternative to smoking tobacco that kills 500,000 people a year,” President Matt Salmon said.

Despite ECA goals, we were clearly told it’s a healthy alternative at Independence Center and Oak Park Mall kiosks by companies that are not part of the ECA membership.

At Smoke51, the owner calls it a “healthy alternative.”

His salesman says, “It’s not harmful to you.”

The salesman went on to say, “You’re getting a cigarette with all the pros and not the cons. It saves your life and it saves your health.”

In Independence Center, the flavors were pushed to a minor we sent to the kiosk.

“Most girls really like it again my wife absolutely loves the blueberry. It gives you Vitamin D and it gives you the exact same thing you get out of a regular cigarette the only difference it’s not killing you,” the salesman said at Smoking Everywhere.

Kids Think They’re Cool

E-cigarettes are available in a variety of flavors and have different levels of nicotine.

Since they don’t contain tobacco, it’s not illegal to sell them to a minor. However, most company websites and kiosks won’t sell to someone under age 18. Online, you’re not even allowed on some Web sites unless you certify you’re over 18.

It’s still a concern to parents who thought their teens were safe at the mall.

John Wickwire says his 17-year-old son came home from the mall and talked all about electronic cigarettes. John says his son was with a group of teens who were all under age 18 except for one.

“He came home all excited, and I was like, freaked, and I think he was surprised by how I reacted.

“He’s excited and saying, ‘Oh, yeah, there’s this new thing. It’s so cool. They have these flavors,’ and I’m like, ‘What is it?’

“And then he said, ‘Oh, it’s this new kind of cigarette’.

“And I’m like, ‘No, I don’t want you doing cigarettes’,” Wickwire said.

Wickwire thinks there’s a better place for this product than the mall.

“It’s nicotine. It’s addictive. It should be in a drugstore,” Wickwire said.

He says he complained to management at Independence Center. Then he called for action.

Undercover: Easy Access for Kids

We launched an investigation, sending our intern into the mall with a minor whose parents gave us permission. They were armed with a hidden camera.

At the kiosk in Independence Center, our minor wasn’t allowed to try the e-cigarrette.

“I would let you, I don’t have a problem with it, but they would get mad at us. I’m a new employee and got four kids I have to try to support,” the salesman at Smoking Everywhere told our minor.

Wickwire is pleased our minor wasn’t offered a smoke, and hopes his complaining helped bring about that change.

Independence Center would not comment on our story. We also called the corporate Smoking Everywhere office, and have not heard back from the company.

Wickwire was also concerned that the e-cigarettes kiosk at Independence Center was located near teen stores like a skate shop, but he says it has since been moved.

At Oak Park Mall, Smoke51 has also been moved. It was on the lower level of the mall to start. The owner says it was near a carousel where moms and their children would play, so it’s been moved to the food court.

Rafael Orlan owns the Smoke51 kiosk, and says he doesn’t even want kids hanging around his kiosk.

“We have signs must be 18 to buy or try it,” says Orlan.

However, when our minor and intern went to his kiosk, they were offered an e-cigarette with no nicotine.

Our intern asked, “So what’s the point of that?”

The salesman answered, “An oral fixation. It just feels like a cigarette if you want to try the zero one I’ll let you try it.”

A few seconds later, our minor was puffing away on a product that looked like a cigarette but supposedly has no nicotine.

We showed the video to Orlan.

“He made a mistake. A horrible mistake. He did give her zero nicotine which, I guess he made a judgment call, but it was the wrong call for me,” Orlan said.

Orlan says he trains he employees to ask for ID.

“Of course they’ll take notice of this because he will get fired,” Orlan said.

While what happened is not illegal, Orlan says he doesn’t want his product marketed to people who don’t smoke and the $180 price point is one way he tries to make it unattractive to children.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also concerned about the product being targeted to teens.

It currently bans flavored cigarettes fearing they target children, but flavored e-cigarettes are allowed.

In July, the FDA did put out a warning about e-cigarettes.

“These products are marketed and sold to young people and are readily available online and in shopping malls. In addition, these products do not contain any health warnings comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or conventional cigarettes. They are also available in different flavors, such as chocolate and mint, which may appeal to young people,” the FDA says.

The FDA’s Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed a sample of cartridges from Njoy and Smoking Everywhere.

The FDA says one sample detected diethylene glycol, which the FDA says is a chemical used in antifreeze, and is toxic to humans.

The FDA says other samples revealed carcinogens.

While it did the testing, the FDA calls it a preliminary analysis and adds that you should not draw conclusions about what is or is not in these products because it can vary.

The FDA says it tested some cartridges that were labeled as having no nicotine, yet the FDA says it found low levels of nicotine in all except one cartridge. The FDA says it also found that the nicotine levels vary.

FDA Blocks Some E-Cigarette Imports

Shipments of e-cigarettes have even been detained at the border.

The FDA is concerned because these devices have not been submitted for approval or evaluation by the FDA, and they have only limited testing to determine product safety.

The FDA believes e-cigarettes meet the definition of a drug-device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. There is even a federal case pending over the FDA’s jurisdiction over this product.

For the FDA to approve the product, the company would need to submit data showing that the product is safe and effective.

Florida-based Smoking Everywhere, Inc. is asking for a preliminary injunction against the FDA so the company can import electronic cigarettes and its accessories. One-hundred percent of its e-cigarette supply is imported, and the FDA has refused some e-cigarette shipments, and added the product to an “Import Alert” list.

The company believes it was not notified correctly of this alert, and questions the FDA’s ability to regulate electronic cigarettes.

The lawsuit from Smoking Everywhere, Inc., says, “By including electronic cigarettes on the FDA’s import alert, several shipments of SE’s products have been wrongfully refused entry into the United States.”

Effective Alternative to Tobacco Smoking

The Electronic Cigarette Association questions the timing of the FDA’s testing.

“If they truly believe that the public is out there being harmed, isn’t one day too long to sit on a study like that? Whey did they not release it for three months? That’s their own factual information,” Salmon said.

Salmon doesn’t smoke, but believes you have the right to smoke and believes there should be an alternative available. He’s seen the devastating effects of smoking on family members.

As an Arizona congressman, Salmon pushed through one of the first public smoking bans. He wants the industry to sell a safe product, and applauds increased regulation as long as it’s within reason.

Since the ECA tells its members to not make health claims, he doesn’t believe FDA testing is necessary to continue sales.

“It would probably take three to eight years to accomplish that, and up to $1.5-billion to do that kind of testing. This is a small industry. We are not big pharmaceutical companies. We are tyring to offer an alternative,” Salmon said.

As for the concerns raised by Wickwire, Salmon shares his belief that e-cigarettes should be pulled from malls.

“I don’t think there’s enough safeguards in kiosks in malls to keep them out of the hands of children,” Salmon said.

He even agrees with banning the flavors if that will protect more children.

Some States have Banned or Restricted E-Cigarettes

John Wickwire is surprised safety discussions didn’t happen before the product was put in malls. He’d like to see e-cigarettes moved to drugstores.

“I thought we had a lot more safeguards,” Wickwire said.

We called the Jackson and Johnson County health departments, and they weren’t aware of the kiosks.

In Oregon, the attorney general filed a lawsuit against Smoking Everywhere, alleging the company made false claims about it’s electronic cigarette.

“It’s my duty to protect the public from products that are falsely advertised as safe,” Attorney General John Kroger said in August.

Oregon sued the company for rejecting a settlement similar to one it reached with other retailers and distributors. The deal keeps them from selling the battery-operated device until they meet state and federal standards.

In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill to ban e-cigarettes.

“While I support restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18, I cannot sign a measure that also declares them a federally regulated drug when the matter is currently being decided through pending litigation,” Schwarzenegger wrote to the California Senate.

In August, Suffolk County New York passed a bill that means e-cigarettes will face the same restrictions as traditional cigarettes. You can’t sell cigarettes to anyone under age 19 and you can’t use them in public places where traditional smoking is banned. “We here in Suffolk County can be proud that we didn’t sit on our hands and wait for Washington to act,” said Majority Leader John Cooper in August.

The e-cigarettes are also banned in some countries across the world.

However, the local Smoke51 owner, points to research from New Zealand to declare the safety of the product.

As the debate heats up concerning the use of electronic cigarettes, Electronic
Cigarette Association (ECA) President Matt Salmon today encouraged those
involved in this discussion to carefully and honestly study how these devices
work and recognize that the more than one million adult committed smokers, who
use electronic cigarettes, are seeking an alternative to combustible cigarettes
that contain a multitude of toxic, harmful chemicals.

The debate on these devices has intensified in recent months as events have
fueled and focused attention on electronic cigarettes, including a front-page
story last week and a follow-up editorial in yesterday`s edition of USA Today
and stories or editorials in other major newspapers such as the New York Times
and Los Angeles Times. Governor Schwarzenegger`s veto of a bill that would have
denied California citizens the right to purchase electronic cigarettes and a
warning by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on a flawed, narrow
study have also contributed to the growing debate.

“Unfortunately, many of the arguments we`ve seen recently against electronic
cigarettes have been driven by fear of the unknown, insufficient evidence,
political agendas, and ignorance about our members` products,” said Salmon. “As
in the case of California Governor Schwarzenegger, we`ve found that reasonable
people, when willing to honestly and intellectually evaluate the information
about electronic cigarettes, find that these products provide smokers a viable
alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes.”

Some legislators have taken a stance against electronic cigarettes as a result
of an FDA study that Salmon says was extremely narrow in scope and failed to
follow established scientific protocols. The Electronic Cigarette Association
has called on the FDA to take a more scientific approach and to work with ECA
members before making any hasty decision to ban electronic cigarettes
altogether. Such a ban would leave smokers without an alternative to combustible
cigarettes, whose toxic substances and life-threatening health effects are
clearly documented and which the FDA has no intention of banning.

“We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be
necessary, and we welcome that. Our goal, nevertheless, is to ensure committed
adult smokers the freedom of a clear, better alternative and to prohibit sales
to minors,” said Salmon.

About the Electronic Cigarette Association

The ECA (www.ecassoc.org) is an association of private sector companies engaged
in electronic cigarette technologies. Its mission is to provide the tools and
information necessary for policy-makers, opinion leaders, media, and private
sector companies worldwide to make informed decisions about the management and
use of electronic cigarette technologies. The association institutes and
promotes industry-wide standards and a code of conduct, works to maintain sound
professional practices, educates the public and policy-makers on the industry`s
activities and potential, and works to ensure the ethical use of electronic
cigarette technologies.

So I’m blabbing away the other day as a guest on the WIBW-AM 580 talk show “On the Other Hand” when I glance into the control room and see the producer taking a drag on a cigarette.

No joke. Even though the studio is smoke-free, the guy was sparking up right there in front of Raubin Pierce and Dave Relihan and God and everybody.

A case of insubordination? A quick fix while the boss was looking the other way?

No and no. He had a heater, all right, but in this case the term could be taken literally.

The thing he was “smoking” was actually an electronic cigarette, a battery-powered gadget that heats a liquid cartridge containing nicotine and turns it into a vapor that the user inhales. It looked a little like a penlight, with an indicator bulb in the tip that glowed when the juice came on. (By the way, the producer will remain nameless here because he doesn’t use his e-cigarette around his kids and also doesn’t want them to know he’s a former smoker of “analog cigarettes,” as he calls them.)

At any rate, maybe you’re thinking what I was thinking as I poked my nose into the control room and didn’t catch a hint of smoke. Could e-cigarettes offer a safe middle ground in the battle over the city of Topeka’s smoking ban?

The producer certainly swears by the New Age way of lighting up, saying the vapor from the replaceable cartridges doesn’t contain dangerous chemicals found in cigarette smoke. He says he hasn’t had a regular cigarette since going electronic in April.

In a front-page story Monday in USA Today, an industry spokesperson said at least a half-million Americans are using e-cigarettes, so there are obviously a lot of places where you can smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em.

But the same story went on to say that the Food and Drug Adminstration detected carcinogens in tests of electronic cigarettes, providing ammo for public health officials who have raised safety concerns about them. Several governing bodies have either imposed restrictions on the devices or are considering legislation banning or limiting their use.

Although makers of e-cigarettes are challenging the FDA in court, look for more testing and more public debate on the safety issue. In other words, the next target in the clean-air movement might be cigarettes that don’t even smolder.

Despite testimonials from the producer and others, e-smokers may have a long fight ahead of them.

James Watt, who is the Vice Chair of the Electronic Cigarette Association did a phone interview with Bill Cunningham on his radio show today. The interview was specifically about those who wish to include the electronic cigarette in smoking bans. You can use the audio player below to listen to the interview.

Transcript of October 26th, 2009 Interview of James Watt, ECA Vice Chair, on the Bill Cunningham Show on News Radio 700 WLW

BC is Bill Cunningham
JW is James Watt

BC Let’s continue with more. Twenty-nine minutes after this hour, Bill Cunningham, News Radio 700 WLW.

All right. Now there’s a big story on the front page of USA Today today that says that electronic cigarettes are battery-operated devices that turn nicotine and other chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user, and they’re opening a new front in the tobacco wars because they give off no carcinogens, no secondhand smoke. And the battery-operated device is made up of a cartridge containing nicotine, flavoring, and chemicals. It turns nicotine, which is addictive, into a vapor that is inhaled.

Joining me now is James Watt, and he’s, like, vice chairman of the Electronic Cigarette Association. James Watt, welcome to the Bill Cunningham Show.

JW Thank you very much, Bill.

BC Well, let’s talk about this particular cigarette. About a half million Americans are now using these cigarettes. I’ve heard ads on our radio station that talks about these cigarettes. Talk about what they are and why they were developed.

JW Well, Bill, the–the electronic cigarette was–it’s been on the market for about five plus years now, and it’s been in the U.S. for, oh, about two and a half. Essentially, it’s an alternative to a tobacco cigarette. It works very similarly in the action where you bring something up to your mouth, you inhale, you exhale.

I think that the big difference between the two products is tobacco cigarettes use combustion, where the electronic cigarette uses vaporization. There are some very distinct differences between combustion and vaporization. So many longtime smokers find it to be a suitable replacement to their tobacco cigarettes.

BC So let’s say I’m sitting next to someone in a restaurant. I’m five–five feet away or six inches away. They’re right behind me, and they’re–and they’re using one of these electronic cigarettes. Would I even know it?

JW You would, provided you could see it. With most of the batteries on them, there is an LED will light up on the end when they inhale, and you will actually see the vapor come out. With that said, if you didn’t see the light, you didn’t see the vapor, you would not know they were using it. The–

BC Do they–do they smell?

JW No, they do not.

BC So a person that uses these–a lot smokers have smokers’ breath, and you can tell they’ve smoked because the clothes stink. That wouldn’t happen here?

JW That does not happen at all.

BC So is there any emissions at all that would rise the–raise the alarms of secondhand smokers?

JW Well, that’s a good question, an I’m certainly not a doctor or scientist that could get into specifically what’s in it. I can tell you many of the things that are produced specifically from combustion simply are not in that vapor. You know, the things that are typically produced with combustion, that’s where you get your arsenic, your carbon monoxide, your hydrogen cyanide. Those things are not produced through the process of vaporization.

BC So while the story seems to say that if you’re worried about secondhand smoke, that you’re not affected by it. Are you saying that’s true or untrue?

JW I’m saying that the electronic cigarette does not produce smoke–

BC No smoke at all.

JW –firsthand or secondhand.

BC So–

JW No smoke. It’s a vapor. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

BC And how expensive are these? If each cigarette has an indicator light, a battery, an atomizer, liquid cartridges, inhaler tips, how expensive is each cigarette?

JW Well, there’s a lot of different models on the market. I mean, there are disposable ones. But the vast majority are reusable, so the only thing you’re replacing is that cartridge with the liquid in it.

You know, typically, I think most smokers could see probably a forty to sixty percent savings by moving over to the electronic cigarette versus tobacco cigarettes.

BC Really? So you save money?

JW Absolutely.

BC Well, many states–California, New Jersey, most of the liberal ones, Oregon–are moving now to ban this. And the argument that was used for years is that you have to ban cigarette smoking in public because of secondhand smoke, because patrons would be affected, employees would be affected.

This cigarette undermines that entire argument, and I think those who oppose it are now showing their true colors because their argument is not that it produces secondhand smoke effects that are harmful. Their argument is that the person using it is harmful. So essentially, they don’t want to ban secondhand smoke. What they want to ban is cigarette use. Haven’t they showed their hand?

JW You know, I guess that’s to each their own in interpreting their actions. But I can say including the electronic cigarette with a smoking ban that does talk about, you know, specifically the secondhand smoke and the health effects of that, including the electronic cigarette in that seems unscientific, at best. You’re including something that just simply does not produce smoke.

BC And–and similar to MADD mothers, who started out trying to ban drunk driving, which is good thing, but now they’ve turned into a temperance organization. They’ve done all they can do with drunk drivers, punishing them disproportionately many times to other crimes committed by other criminals. They have now become an organization that wants to ban the use of alcohol, which is for years they said, “That’s not our intent.”

Much like the smoke–the smoke crowd, they began for years saying, “Secondhand smoke is terrible. It’s got to be stopped.” But now that the industry and now that the scientists have come up with a way to produce no secondhand smoke because there is no smoke–it’s a smokeless cigarette–now you have the left-wing activists that want to govern someone’s behavior and tell them they can’t smoke at all even though there’s no secondhand smoke.

So much like MADD mothers, to my way of thinking, they’ve demonstrated what their intent was all along, which was to ban tobacco use. And if they want to do that, James, go ahead and do it. Be forthright. But don’t use some other means or method to get to where you want to get, and then–and then what that detour was blocked by people like your trade organization, they now say, “Well, we don’t want people even to smoke smokeless cigarettes.” Why? Well, the answer is, “We don’t want you to do it.” And–and so it’s–it’s not–

JW It–

BC –it’s not about secondhand smoke. What it’s about is changing American behavior.

JW You know, some people definitely interpret it that way. I think it’s also important to understand that this product was not brought to the market by the tobacco industry. There’s no tobacco companies to my knowledge actually marketing the electronic cigarette, and there is no tobacco in it. You can have the cartridges with or without nicotine at all. There’s many users who will use the electronic cigarette with no nicotine. You know, so it’s–it’s not a tobacco product.

And I think that some of these organizations, it’s almost worse than–than the scenario that you mentioned simply because they don’t know about the electronic cigarette. There’s–I read through some of the proposals that they’re attempting to ban the electronic cigarette’s use in public places. It’s evident that they haven’t done the research to understand the product before they actually ban it.

BC Right. Well, James Watt, I’ve never smoked. I never would smoke. But I think American freedom means a lot, and if somebody wants to do this activity and no one else is affected by it, government has no role.

Electronic cigarettes are opening a new front in the tobacco wars as state and local lawmakers try to restrict the product, which may allow users to circumvent smoking bans.

The battery-powered device is made up of a cartridge containing nicotine, flavoring and chemicals. It turns nicotine, which is addictive, into a vapor that is inhaled. Users say they’re “vaping,” not smoking.

E-cigarettes are used by at least a half-million Americans, says Matt Salmon, head of the Electronic Cigarette Association.

“People who smoke ought to have better alternatives, because some can’t quit,” he says. His father, a longtime smoker, died last week of cancer and emphysema.

Public health officials question the safety of e-cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates tobacco and nicotine replacement devices, says the e-cigarettes it tested had carcinogens. E-cigarette distributors have filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s authority.

“It’s a new frontier. We don’t know what the dangers are,” says John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health, an anti-smoking group.

“We’re actively investigating these companies and their products,” says Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Other actions:

• California passed a ban on e-cigarette sales, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it this month.

• Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, a Democrat, reached a settlement in August with retailers and distributors not to sell them.

• New Hampshire state Rep. Rich DiPentima, a Democrat, is crafting a bill to ban sales to minors.

• New Jersey state Assemblywoman Connie Wagner, a Democrat, plans a bill to subject e-cigarettes to the same restrictions as cigarettes.

• In Paramus, N.J., the health department’s board plans to propose an ordinance today banning e-cigarettes where smoking is not allowed.

• In August, Suffolk County, N.Y., restricted e-cigarettes in public places and banned sales to minors.

To Julie Woessner, 46, a former smoker in Wildwood, Mo., they are “almost a miracle,” allowing her to kick her two-packs-a-day cigarette habit.

Incoming search terms:

• electronic cigarette leave a comment
• joye ecig wildwood new jersey
• local halo electronic cigarette juice distributors

Industry hails veto of anti-smoking alternative bill as victory for consumers, common sense

Washington, D.C. – October 12, 2009 | Matt Salmon, president of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA), today praised California Governor Schwarzenegger’s wise decision to veto Senate Bill 400, which would have banned electronic cigarette sales in the state, protecting adult consumers’ access to these alternative smoking devices.

“This is not just a victory for consumers and common sense but is smart public policy as well,” said Salmon. “Rejecting this bill is the right step and should serve as a model for other states to follow.”

In his veto message, Governor Schwarzenegger reiterated the stance of the ECA that strongly supports restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18. “We agree with the original intent of SB 400 to ban sales to those under the legal smoking age. And we support that on a national level as well,” added Salmon.

The Governor affirmed that this restriction should not apply to adult consumers: “If adults want to purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they should be able to do so unless and until federal law changes the legal status of these tobacco products.”

The ECA actively communicated to the Governor its members’ concerns about the bill and the fact that banning these electronic cigarettes would disenfranchise thousands of California adult smokers who have difficulty quitting but want an alternative to combustible cigarettes without the host of carcinogens and harmful chemicals. Salmon credited this legislative victory to the efforts of thousands of consumers and ECA members who appealed directly to Governor Schwarzenegger to protect their rights.

“While we know that combustible tobacco smoking kills over 400,000 Americans annually, and the percentage of smokers that quit every year is dismally low, we ought to be looking for more alternatives to traditional combustible tobacco products,” said Salmon.

Electronic cigarette kits usually include the electronic cigarette, a replaceable cartridge pack (that may or may not contain nicotine), rechargeable lithium batteries, and a charger. There is some variation between different companies in what is included in their starter kit, but all components are listed on their Web sites. While ECA members do not market these devices as a healthy alternative or smoking cessation device, it is clear that they do not contain the harmful tars and hundreds of carcinogens that consumers get from combustible tobacco products.

“We look forward to working with all government agencies, including the FDA, to ensure that consumers who want an alternative to combustible tobacco products have access to e-cigarettes that contain fewer harmful substances and produce no secondhand smoke,” concluded Salmon.

THE City Council this week voted 46-1 to ban many flavorings in a variety of tobacco products, and Mayor Bloomberg is likely to sign it into law. Speaker Christine Quinn justified it as an effort to protect children — but the main effect will be to make it harder for adult smokers to quit.

The ban also covers many flavors of snus — a smokeless, and thus far less harmful, tobacco.

Snus is a pouch of tobacco that goes between cheek and gum, delivering the nicotine that smokers crave without the harmful chemicals that come from burning and inhaling tobacco. The risk of oral cancer from smokeless tobacco is low — far lower than the oral cancer risk from smoking cigarettes.

And switching from cigarettes to snus eliminates the risk of heart disease, lung cancer and the other systemic diseases related to smoking — not to mention secondhand smoke.

Still, Council Health Committee Chairman Joel Rivera lauded the bill: “This legislation is a major step forward in protecting kids and deterring them from starting a lethal habit.”

But sales of all tobacco products to minors are already illegal. The city should enforce the law on the books rather than stymie adults’ switch to a less harmful product.

Ironically, the city ban exempts flavored hookah tobacco and menthol — both of which are popular among younger tobacco users and which, unlike the banned flavored snus, have no redeeming public-health value. They certainly don’t help people quit cigarettes.

New York City is not alone in banning the wrong products. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently called for a ban on e-cigarettes.

E-cigarettes are devices that supply users with vaporized nicotine and look like cigarettes. They contain no tobacco and are noncombustible, eliminating almost all smoking risks. They could be a lifesaver; the only reason to crack down is the ideology of the public-health movement, which has decided that anything that has tobacco in it, or even looks like a cigarette, must be illegal, even for sale to adult smokers trying to stop smoking.

The pollyannas behind this approach believe that no level of risk is acceptable. Elizabeth Kilgore, acting assistant commissioner of tobacco control at the NYC Department of Health, says smokers who have tried to quit but failed should just keep on trying again and again rather than try snus or e-cigarettes.

It is a quit-or-die dogma that evades logic.

The federal government is getting into the act as well. The Food and Drug Administration, now tasked with regulating tobacco, in July warned about tiny levels of carcinogens in e-cigarettes, telling smokers to stay away — in effect telling them to stick with deadly cigarettes.

These government actions will do nothing to protect kids. The only effect is to promote the most dangerous form of tobacco use, smoking cigarettes.

If the advocates get their way, the only thing addicted smokers will be able to buy are mostly ineffective nicotine gums and patches — and, of course, cigarettes.

Incoming search terms:

• elizabeth kilgore tobacco control

Julie Woessner puffs on an electronic cigarette and feels a vapor full of nicotine wafting deep into her lungs.

Woessner and thousands around the country are passionate in their belief that the battery-powered sticks that deliver nicotine without burning have been lifesavers.

“If I hadn’t have had it, I’d still be smoking,’ said Woessner, 46, a homemaker living in Wildwood.

People like Woessner call themselves “vapers” because they “vape” or inhale vapor that includes nicotine from e-cigarettes. They

worry the government may try to take away something they see as a lifesaver.

“If that happens, I will be smoking again, and that makes me sick,” said Woessner. She first used the device in January and immediately stopped smoking.

A federal Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman said the FDA has not moved to ban e-cigarettes, which heat a liquid and nicotine to a vapor so people can puff them.

FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey contends her agency wants to regulate electronic cigarette so it can be sure that the people who use them are getting a reliable dose of nicotine, and that there are no far-reaching health effects from long-term use.

“There are no long-term studies on the health effects of just nicotine, minus the tobacco component. We know what smoking tobacco does to the body over the long term,” DeLancey said. “What we want to see are well-designed clinical studies. Personal reports are not enough,” DeLancy said.

The FDA maintains e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals like diethylene glycol, an ingredient in industrial antifreeze.

But backers of e-cigarettes contend what is produced is much safer than cigarettes.

The Electronic Cigarette Association doesn’t claim e-cigarettes are smoke cessation devices and it isn’t making health claims.

The trade association made up of about 20 companies was formed this year.

Matt Salmon, the group’s president estimates revenues this year at $100 million, way above last year.

There are hundreds of thousands of users, he said.

“They’re very, very passionate,” Salmon said.

Salmon said that while the government continues to allow a known killer like combustible cigarettes, it should allow an alternative like e-cigarettes. “The FDA doesn’t seem to have a clear agenda,” Salmon said. “If it’s totally about public health, why not ban tobacco?”

Patricia Clewell, 49, a mosaic artist living in Webster Groves, is asking similar questions. She started smoking at 15 and was averaging a pack a day when she started vaping in March. She immediately stopped smoking.

“If you’re going to smoke anyway, whatever you can do to minimize your tobacco use is a good thing,” she said.

Clewell doesn’t consider vaping the same thing as smoking.

“You’re not lighting anything. There’s no combustion. It’s the combustion that kills you, not nicotine,” Clewell said.

What makes the electronic cigarettes more effective than things like the nicotine patch is that people use the hands to bring something to the month, Clewell said.

Clewell’s husband, David Clewell, 54, a professor who directs the creative writing program at Webster University, went from two packs a day to four to six cigarettes a day when he started vaping.

“I feel much better. I’ve got more breath,” David Clewell said. “I really like the fact that my clothes, my skin, my hands are not wreaking of cigarettes.”

The Clewells say they wonder what the government is up to. So does Woessner, who met Patricia Clewell through groups that used e-cigarettes.

Woessner said an initial device with supplies costs $75 to $100 and that supplies can cost $40 to $50 a month. A pack of cigarettes might cost $4.50.

One starter kit advertised on the Internet included a pack, two batteries, an atomizer, a charger and 25 cartridges equal to 150 cigarettes. It sold for $59.95. Five additional cartridges equaling 30 cigarettes sold for $5.

Woessner expects to vape for years to come, but at a level with very little nicotine.

“This is something the government should be pushing for, a clean way of allowing people to smoke,” Woessner said.

Delancey disagreed.

“I feel their pain,” she said. “We don’t know if this is any better for them.”

A major policy shift is underway, and it is bound to have a dangerous unintended consequence. The new team at the FDA has slapped a black box warning on an important class of drugs that treat inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and colitis.

The cancer risk highlighted by this new bold warning has been known for years — and hasn’t gotten worse. We already knew of the cancer risk in children and adolescents, and responsible doctors were cautious in using them. The new warning signals only a change in perception of risk, not any change in actual risk.

Physicians should still give due consideration to the benefits of the drugs, especially in light of the paucity of other treatments for debilitating and often dangerous inflammatory diseases. Consider the benefit versus risk analysis for inflammatory diseases with secondary risks.

For example, by not using these drugs out of possibly inflated concerns due to the new additional cancer warning, might inflammatory bowel disease patients face a higher risk of colon cancer as a result of years of inflammation? You won’t see that risk in bold print. But it is just as real. And this is precisely the problem with the FDA’s new policy, which is based on the assumption that erring on the side of more warnings is the safest way to go.

Similarly, this summer, the FDA warned about the safety of e-cigarettes, a product many smokers are using to quit smoking real cigarettes. E-cigarettes are devices that supply users with vaporized nicotine and look like cigarettes, many even having an LED light at the tip. These products, which contain no tobacco and are non-combustible, eliminate virtually all the risks of smoking. For the vast majority of smokers unable to quit even with the help of drugs and counseling, e-cigarettes could be a lifesaver.

Yet the FDA found tiny levels of carcinogens in the product and warned smokers to stay away, essentially telling them to go back to deadly cigarettes.

Unfortunately, it is no surprise that the new leadership at the FDA is taking a more aggressive stance with regard to warnings.

These warnings are a harbinger of how the agency will weigh benefits versus risks: with a thumb weighing down the risk side. This distorted approach has numerous downsides:

• Fewer patients will get the treatment they need, out of an “abundance of caution” and physicians’ fear of litigation.

• Black box warnings, originally meant for only the most dangerous drugs, will become more widespread but less meaningful.

• The FDA, newly armed with regulatory power over tobacco, will make it harder for people to quit smoking cigarettes by warning them away from disfavored alternatives.

• Investors and researchers (innovative drug companies) will have less incentive to pursue new medications that may attract scary warnings.

The old adage “better safe than sorry” is too simplistic in today’s world to be the guiding principle at the FDA.

Incoming search terms:

• cigarettes black box warning
• e9 cigarette labels

The Food and Drug Administration last month held a press conference warning people of what they claim are the potential health risks and harmful effects associated with electronic cigarettes. Unfortunately, the study was extremely narrow in scope and included only limited data, failing to include a scientifically significant sample of e-cigarette products on the market or their users. They also failed to acknowledge the efforts on the part of electronic cigarette suppliers in our association to market their products solely as alternatives to adult smokers looking to avoid inhaling all the harmful toxins that come from combustible cigarettes.

If you aren’t familiar, e-cigarettes are electronic devices that deliver various levels of nicotine, depending on the desires of the users. These devices look and feel like a combustible cigarette and include a battery, a cartridge that delivers the nicotine, and an atomizer that creates a vapor to simulate the appearance and experience of smoking. So, smokers get the nicotine they crave but aren’t exposed to the hundreds of toxins that are known to shorten a smoker’s lifespan, giving the more than 1 million Americans who now use e-cigarettes a potential health advantage over those who continue to smoke combustible cigarettes. In addition to reducing the toxins from their habit, e-cigarette users enjoy having an alternative that they can use in the workplace and in public without violating any laws or policies, nor annoying or exposing non-smokers to tobacco smoke.

The Electronic Cigarette Association, which I represent, acknowledges the health risks of cigarette smoking and advocates that smokers quit. But we also recognize the struggles that many have in quitting and who are looking for a more convenient and better alternative to tobacco cigarettes. While some of our customers have reported using our devices to help them quit smoking by slowing reducing the nicotine delivery in our products, it is important to note that our member companies do not market their e-cigarettes as smoking cessation products nor make any such claims. The enormous response our members have received from more than 1 million Americans undoubtedly demonstrates that smokers unable to quit are desperately looking for an alternative to cigarettes.

Our member companies are extremely careful to market only to committed adult smokers who simply want an alternative to combustible cigarettes. In addition to eliminating the toxins from their habit, e-cigarette users enjoy having an alternative that they can use in the workplace and in public without violating any laws or policies and nor annoying or exposing non-smokers to tobacco smoke.

ECA was disappointed in the FDA study, particularly because it failed to follow its traditionally sound, scientific practices but instead issued misleading and narrow data without thoroughly testing the potential health benefits of e-cigarettes that potentially could save the lives of millions of Americans. I have attached with this letter a technical review and scientific analysis of the FDA’s report that was performed by scientists at Exponent. Among the limitations in the FDA study, Exponent found the following:

* The FDA failed to present standard protocols for proper study design with regards to the testing of the referenced control devices.

* The chemical content of similar nicotine-containing, FDA-approved products was not completely described with respect to the presence of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) and other tobacco-associated impurities that have also been found in nicotine replacement therapy devices at similar, if not higher, levels.

* In the lots tested by the FDA, none of the chemicals of concern in the study were able to be quantifiably measured in the liquid of the device’s cartridges.

* Data presented in the report does not adequately support the opinion that users of the products would actually be exposed to TSNA’s and tobacco-specific impurities in the vapor phase during normal use and if exposed, that those levels would be a health concern as compared to other FDA-approved products.

Given the limitations of this study, we encourage the FDA to take a more scientific approach and to work with members of the ECA before making any rash decisions to ban e-cigarettes altogether. Such a ban would leave smokers without an alternative to combustible cigarettes, which are clearly documented and known for their unhealthy and life-threatening results and which the FDA has no intention of banning. The enormous response our members have received from the more than 1 million Americans undoubtedly demonstrates that smokers unable to quit desperately are looking for an alternative to cigarettes.

We believe Americans should have a right to choose an alternative and our association is willing to work with Congress and the FDA to provide the necessary data to encourage reliable and extensive studies that we are confident will demonstrate the efficacy of choosing a product that will not deliver the harmful carcinogens found in cigarettes. We also want to work to ensure that manufactures agree not to make any health claims nor market these products to those younger than the legal smoking age. Our members are committed to following such guidelines and to giving smokers an alternative until they can make the commitment to quit smoking.

We do agree with the FDA, however; that E-Cigarettes should not be purchased or consumed by those under the legal age of smoking. We support any legislation, be it state or federal, that makes it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to children and those under the legal smoking age. We only market our products to committed long term smokers and would never want this to entice anyone who is not already addicted to nicotine to use our product.

Before any rash decisions are made on the future of e-cigarettes, the ECA asks that you encourage the FDA to conduct comprehensive, scientific studies. I would be happy to discuss this issue with you further. Please visit our website at www.ecassoc.org for more comprehensive information about our association and our product.