Washington Post: E-cigarettes raise new questions about smoking

[Vocalek]

The headline on the digital edition is better than the one I read this morning in the Health&Science section of the print edition. "E-smoking: Its safety is still up in the air."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...83e968-0f19-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

I was already cringing when I read the headline, but by the time I got to the third paragraph, which on the printed page ended with "Stanton" I was saying aloud, "Oh, no, oh no, oh no. Please! No!"

When a friend sitting at my kitchen table pulled out what looked like a cigarette, I was about to direct her to the front porch. But then I realized that what she was blowing was an odorless vapor, not smoke. It was an electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes come in a variety of shapes and models, but most consist of a battery, a heating element, and a liquid that contains nicotine, propylene glycol and flavorings. The heating element warms and aerosolizes the liquid, turning it into a vapor the user inhales. Smoking an e-cigarette (called “vaping”), gives users a nicotine hit without exposing them, or those around them, to tobacco smoke. The lack of odor is one of the biggest selling points, says Craig Weiss, chief executive of njoy electronic cigarettes.

Though e-cigarette makers do not make safety or health claims, many users assume that eliminating the smoke of burning tobacco also eliminates the harm. “There’s no question that e-cigarettes deliver fewer [toxic substances] than conventional cigarettes, but the question of how much less is still not clear,” says Stanton
E-cigarette continued on E6

and when I turned to page E6 my worst fears were confirmed.

Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California at San Francisco. Though sales of e-cigarettes are expected to reach $1 billion this year, with many different brands available. vaping is new enough that there haven’t been many studies done yet — certainly none of the large-scale, randomized trials that would be necessary to offer conclusive answers about the safety of e-cigarettes, Glantz says.

Glantz has never conducted any first hand research on e-cigarette consumers. I doubt that he has ever held a civil conversation with one. Yet, somehow he is the person sought out by the reporter as an "expert."

Let's ignore all the US scientists that have actually conducted studies on e-cigarettes and/or their consumers, such as Carl V. Phillips, Jonathan Foulds, Brad Rudu, Michael Siegel, Walt Sumner, Andrea Vansickel and even Tom Eissenberg. Instead let's talk to the leader of the anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine movement. He'll know all about the products! <- Sarcasm alert

 

[Bob Chill]

Having lived in the dc metro area most of my life I know the Post well. They are almost always centrist with issues that are or could become political. Pretty standard Post approach here. Throw in equal amounts of good and bad and let the debate continue without picking sides.

I wasn't mad at this tidbit:

Unlike tobacco cigarettes, electronic cigarettes aren’t currently subject to regulation in the United States, which means their ingredients aren’t standardized. The FDA is working on a proposed rule to regulate the devices, wrote agency spokesperson Jenny Haliski in a prepared statement. Though the FDA did not provide a timeline for regulation, Glantz suspects political pressure makes regulation unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Our best case scenario is a push this fall. It's interesting watching the latest string of articles and news bits having a positive spin to show that there is at least some usefulness to ecigs and that they may in fact be beneficial to society in some form or another.

The most important takeaway from the 2 sides is the anti's are using anecdotal and fear tactics and the pro's are using research and fact. Until the anti's have real research and fact on their sides they are on the losing side here. It may not feel like it but the line in the sand hasn't been drawn yet. I do believe the FDA will conduct honest science. Yes, their bias will highlight the negative side more than the positive but I highly doubt the 1 ton anvil exists.

 

[Uma]

They're still crunching the numbers. First, establish that double the people are trying it, check! Next, assure a nice double every other year, check! Now times $1 billion dollars x's billions of ex-smokers no longer dead or dying x's % of people who try it, x's people success rate, subtract tobacco tax loss, x's new higher ecig tax laws, minus advertising to push for 98% tax increase for allowing people to live,

Glantz is a pig imo.

 

[tommy2bad]

I often wonder do the papers contact the 'expert' or is the paper contacted by the 'expert' first? It would explain how the anyz get all the coverage!

 

[stevegmu]

I thought the article was fair.

 

[Buckshot]

I too have lived in the D.C. Metro area most of my life and am very familiar with the Washinton Post. I agree with what Bob said but I wonder how much the recent sale of the Washington Post to Jeff Bezos (Amazon Founder) swayed this article too put money in his pocket.

 

[Phairoh]

I just came here to post a link to this article because I thought it was an incredibly well written and balanced report. I really don't understand what OP is so upset about. Making statements like "Glantz has never conducted any first hand research on e-cigarette consumers. I doubt that he has ever held a civil conversation with one. Yet, somehow he is the person sought out by the reporter as an "expert."" is really just an inflammatory personal attack based on zero evidence that both solves nothing and renders your argument less effective.

I think it's really important that we recognize that there still are a lot of unknowns with our hobby and that more research does need to get done. It's my hope that we get multiple studies done, from the American Lung Association, the CDC, FDA, and from CASAA sources as well. We should be advocating for these studies at every turn so that finally we can say that yes, our hobby is relatively healthy, or ultimately say yes, we now know that our hobby is unhealthy and we have yet another thing to try and quit.

Although I've only been in these forums a couple weeks I've read a number of posts from OP and I'd strongly recommend that you tone it down a touch.

 

[RosaJ]

I just came here to post a link to this article because I thought it was an incredibly well written and balanced report. I really don't understand what OP is so upset about. Making statements like "Glantz has never conducted any first hand research on e-cigarette consumers. I doubt that he has ever held a civil conversation with one. Yet, somehow he is the person sought out by the reporter as an "expert."" is really just an inflammatory personal attack based on zero evidence that both solves nothing and renders your argument less effective.

I think it's really important that we recognize that there still are a lot of unknowns with our hobby and that more research does need to get done. It's my hope that we get multiple studies done, from the American Lung Association, the CDC, FDA, and from CASAA sources as well. We should be advocating for these studies at every turn so that finally we can say that yes, our hobby is relatively healthy, or ultimately say yes, we now know that our hobby is unhealthy and we have yet another thing to try and quit.

Although I've only been in these forums a couple weeks I've read a number of posts from OP and I'd strongly recommend that you tone it down a touch.

Please take a few minutes of your time and check out the CASAA website. You'll find peer reviewed reports in there about the safety/non-safety of ecigs. BTW, you can also join CASAA for free.

 

[AgentAnia]

I just came here to post a link to this article because I thought it was an incredibly well written and balanced report. I really don't understand what OP is so upset about. Making statements like "Glantz has never conducted any first hand research on e-cigarette consumers. I doubt that he has ever held a civil conversation with one. Yet, somehow he is the person sought out by the reporter as an "expert."" is really just an inflammatory personal attack based on zero evidence that both solves nothing and renders your argument less effective.

I think it's really important that we recognize that there still are a lot of unknowns with our hobby and that more research does need to get done. It's my hope that we get multiple studies done, from the American Lung Association, the CDC, FDA, and from CASAA sources as well. We should be advocating for these studies at every turn so that finally we can say that yes, our hobby is relatively healthy, or ultimately say yes, we now know that our hobby is unhealthy and we have yet another thing to try and quit.

Although I've only been in these forums a couple weeks I've read a number of posts from OP and I'd strongly recommend that you tone it down a touch.

While I don't wish to dispute your right to your opinion, I'm going to attribute your naivete to your being new to vaping and to the forum. Vocalek is a veteran vaper, an ECF veteran, a staunch advocate of tobacco harm reduction, and has had years of exposure to Glantz's ideologue, tobacco-prohibitionist tactics. Perhaps when you've read more statements and opinions from experts on both sides of the issue, you'll want to rethink your "zero evidence" comment. This is, of course, just my personal view, which I would never want to inflict on anyone else.

I do, however, take personal exception to your calling vaping "our hobby." Granted, my collection of beautiful and unusual batteries might be considered a hobby, but my vaping is not a hobby, it's a life-saving alternative to a 2-pack-a-day smoking habit. This is my opinion, but I believe many here share it and would not want to see vaping demeaned as a mere "hobby."

Peace.

 

[Uma]

I have to agree, it actually was a fairly decent article. But, it also had its moments of confusion. For instance:


"Some electronic cigarettes allow users to adjust the amount of nicotine they’re getting, and even adjust it down to zero over time, and it seems plausible that a device that lets people reduce the amount of nicotine they’re consuming could help them cut their dependence, Prokhorov says. ".
Vs
"However, right now there aren’t good studies to show that they outperform existing nicotine cessation products, nor are they FDA-approved for this purpose."

No Good studies? Hellllllllloooooooo anybody home?

 

[Phairoh]

I have long since been to CASAA's website and read it from top to bottom (I've also applied to be a regional representative for them here in Chicago, if they'll have me). This is one of the reasons I have switched to vaping over smoking as I've done the research and what information is currently out there does indicate that vaping is less harmful than smoking. But that doesn't change the fact that there are no long term studies on the potential effects of vaping on an individual's health. They don't exist because vaping is too new to have these studies, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to have them now. The sooner we get those studies underway the sooner we can point to them when we go talk to public officials and tell them, "look, these studies are underway. Lets just wait until they're concluded and then we can make a decision based on fact on how to handle these products." If they're already underway, great! Lets get that information out there and make sure that the funding for that study is coming from unbiased sources.

I admittedly was originally unsure of myself when I posted previously as I know that Vocalek is highly respected, but it's important to call out even those highly respected individuals in a group when you believe that they've said something out of turn. Now I may have been a tad hasty with my own "zero evidence" comment, since AgentAnia is correct that I haven't been around to see Vocalek's dealings with this individual, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an inflammatory personal attack which does render arguments less effective. We see the same thing in politics all the time and it's a large part of why here in the United States our government is almost non functional in its ability to pass legislation that actually matters. My point here is that I think it's best to discuss these things rationally, otherwise we're no better than our adversaries that consider vaping to be bad based on nothing.

As for calling it a hobby, I didn't mean anything by that and I apologize if you took it negatively. I, too, have quit smoking cigarettes because of vaping. My cigarette habit was just under a pack a day for quite a while after having tried to quit many times. In fact after I last quit about a year ago (that lasted about 5 months) my doctor almost encouraged me to begin smoking again as nicotine is a treatment for Ulcerative Colitis, something I have been recently diagnosed to have. So for me, vaping is not only saving me from the carcinogenic properties of cigarette smoke, but also providing a therapy in which my UC is better regulated so it's doubly life-saving! But it has certainly very quickly become a hobby for me. Now I want to collect tanks, mods, try rebuilding, different flavors, etc. I get every good aspect of smoking cigarettes with (so far) none of the bad plus I got a new way to spend my money and time! Hooray!

Again, sorry if you took offense to that as it was not my intention.

 

[Bob Chill]

Glantz is definitely not "our guy". I hope I didn't imply that I was a fan. I was just pointing out his statement because I feel the same way. There is a decent chance at regulations getting proposed and then kicked down the road indefinitely until they figure out how to deal with the ballooning industry. It must be frustrating not being able to find out a lick of concrete evidence that ecig use is actually bad for you. lol

The advancement of the ecig is probably that biggest breakthrough in accomplishing what antz wants but they sure can't ever say such things. It's also the biggest threat to traditional cigarette smoking....ever. BT can help and hurt us at the same time. BT wants ecigs to be recreational. Heck, we all want them as a recreational product available to anyone of age. We need BT for that. They are the only ones capable of steering regulations that don't impede ecigs being on the shelf of every gas station and 7-11 in the country. We need that to protect our version of the lifestyle.

Yea, the "as effective as patches" statement is friendly to our cause but it isn't where we want to go here. We want the product to double as a recreational choice for those who want to continue the ecig lifestyle indefinitely and also as an effective cessation product for those who choose to use it for that reason. There's not much history in the US of any product being widely used a recreational "vice" and a medical treatment. Well, there is one out there that WA and CO have decided to allow but I don't want to get another warning so I'll stop there.

The baffling part of the equation is whether or not the folks who like making decisions for us will in fact give us everything we want and deserve. My goodness it's tricky. It's a bit of a corner here. IF the final decision is let's just implement standards, licensing, and taxing and let it go as is then the same people who allow that have to accept the fact that there will collateral damage. There will without question be new folks who never would consider smoking join the lifestyle we enjoy. And some of those folks will without question be under the age of 18. It simply cannot happen any other way. We all know the risk/return equation is massively in our favor but oh the children...the children...barf...

There is no utopia solution anyway. Even approved cessation methods have plenty of collateral damage. NRTs fail miserably and wellbutrin and chantix are almost a crime to put people on imo. There are plenty of people that use nrt's as a lifestyle too. A quick google search of long term use nicotine gum presents a plethora a negative side effects (tooth and jaw problems. not nicotine problems). Nobody even bats an eye though. Baically, nobody cares if you chew nic gum or eat lozenges for 100 years (except BP. they love it).

 

[Vocalek]

I admittedly was originally unsure of myself when I posted previously as I know that Vocalek is highly respected, but it's important to call out even those highly respected individuals in a group when you believe that they've said something out of turn. Now I may have been a tad hasty with my own "zero evidence" comment, since AgentAnia is correct that I haven't been around to see Vocalek's dealings with this individual, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an inflammatory personal attack which does render arguments less effective.

I stand by what I said. Had I said something untrue, that would constitute a personal attack and I'd see your point. If I had even said something true, but misleading, I'd see your point.

But the truth is that Glantz has been opposed to e-cigarettes from day 1, yet he has no personal knowledge of how they work and what they are doing for their consumers. Check out his writings on the subject: Search | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education

I also said that he is anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine. This is also true.

Glatz has been active since the 1980s in the World Conference on Smoking and Health, which later changed its name to World Conference on Smoking or Health, and then finally to World Conference on Tobacco or Health, when the group decided to vilify all tobacco products, regardless of their safety profile, instead of just cigarette smoking. Check out their slogan: 15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health: Towards a tobacco free world - planning globally, acting locally |

He was a key player in the organization's strategic plan to eliminate tobacco from the face of the earth

Smoking will be punished through taxation and the removal of smoking-permitted areas. Any reference to smoking/smokers will always be negative and never positive. Smoking will always be referred to as abnormal behavior. Smoking will be depicted as a non-normal or abnormal behavior. Smokers would be depicted, in a wholly derogatory sense, as ‘nicotine addicts’: Smoking would be ‘reduced’ to no more than nicotine addiction. In short, nonsmokers are ‘superior’, smokers are ‘inferior’.

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

I don't know how much you know about the concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction, but it is based on providing smokers with low-risk alternatives. These include e-cigarettes, as you know, but they also include unrestricted use of NRTs, as well as smokeless tobacco (ST) products. Getting rid of tobacco products such as chewing tobacco and snus that present about 1% the risk of cigarette smoking works against public health, not for it. Some smokers don't find e-cigarettes to be a satisfying substitute for smoking, but are able to transition away from cancer sticks when they add some servings of ST or completely switch to ST.

He is the founder of Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, the group that put out the "model legislation" for changing local anti-smoking laws to include using e-cigarettes in the definition of smoking. Specifically

“Smoking” also includes the use of an ecigarette which creates a vapor, in any manner or in any form, or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking in this Article.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/modelordinance.pdf

This wording should look familiar if you have been following the Legislative Forum or CASAA's Calls to Action and read the wording of the proposed revised smoking bills. You will see the exact wording quoted above, over and over and over.

It greatly annoys me that ANR believes that the only motive we might have for using an e-cigarette is to defy their carefully crafted legislation. We couldn't possibly be using e-cigarettes to improve our health. Could we?

 

[Phairoh]

Vocalek, thanks for the amazing post! This will give me hours of stuff to research!

It does appear from this information that Glantz is E-cig enemy #1, although I don't feel that came through at all in the Washington Post article. I find this to be a positive aspect of the article as it does a pretty good job of staying neutral. Any casual reader would simply find out that one expert (and he must be considered an expert even if his position is antagonistic to our own) is stating that, "There’s no question that e-cigarettes deliver fewer [toxic substances] than conventional cigarettes," and that more research is needed. This is perfect! No casual reader will remember his name 30 seconds after reading it, but they've been informed by an expert of things that are essentially true. I think this is why I believed it was an unjustified inflammatory statement. Now I understand that it was justified, however I still believe not in the context of this article.

Back to reading...

 

[AgentAnia]

Phairoh, it's a long read, but I hope you'll read *everything* in the rampantantismoking link, then you'll have a better understanding of the tactics and strategy being implemented by Glantz and his ilk. Those of us familiar with his ways are often commenting not on a single article or quote, but on the accumulation of lies, half-truths, misrepresentations, and innuendos the zealots put before a largely uninformed public.

 

[Grammie]

Vocalek, thanks for the amazing post! This will give me hours of stuff to research!

It does appear from this information that Glantz is E-cig enemy #1, although I don't feel that came through at all in the Washington Post article. I find this to be a positive aspect of the article as it does a pretty good job of staying neutral. Any casual reader would simply find out that one expert (and he must be considered an expert even if his position is antagonistic to our own) is stating that, "There’s no question that e-cigarettes deliver fewer [toxic substances] than conventional cigarettes," and that more research is needed. This is perfect! No casual reader will remember his name 30 seconds after reading it, but they've been informed by an expert of things that are essentially true. I think this is why I believed it was an unjustified inflammatory statement. Now I understand that it was justified, however I still believe not in the context of this article.

Back to reading...

I think the problem is Glantz has repeatedly stated that there are no studies or evidence over and over and exhaustingly ad nausem over for many years. We know there are studies but apparently he either doesn't read them or chooses to ignore them. If you've read those over and over like Vocalek has for the last many years you'd understand the sarcasm in her posting.

 

[Katya]

Glanz is mindless, opinionated, knee-jerk anti-vaping zealot. He won't bother to educate himself and never lets facts get in the way of his militant position.

There. This is a personal attack. Flame me! Vocalek is a hero.

 

[Vocalek]

Vocalek, thanks for the amazing post! This will give me hours of stuff to research!

It does appear from this information that Glantz is E-cig enemy #1, although I don't feel that came through at all in the Washington Post article. I find this to be a positive aspect of the article as it does a pretty good job of staying neutral. Any casual reader would simply find out that one expert (and he must be considered an expert even if his position is antagonistic to our own) is stating that, "There’s no question that e-cigarettes deliver fewer [toxic substances] than conventional cigarettes," and that more research is needed. This is perfect! No casual reader will remember his name 30 seconds after reading it, but they've been informed by an expert of things that are essentially true. I think this is why I believed it was an unjustified inflammatory statement. Now I understand that it was justified, however I still believe not in the context of this article.

Back to reading...

Good point. I had not thought of that.

He did sound less ANTZ-y than usual when quoted in the Post.

I was disappointed however, that the article gave the impression that zero clinical trials have been conducted. The Italian group that works under Dr. Riccardo Polosa has conducted several trials, the largest of which had 300 subjects and showed that even when the subjects are unwilling to quit and the purpose of the study is smoking reduction rather than quitting, some of the smokers quit completely. They had 24 months of followup with the original group, with no serious adverse events reported. Side effects were similar to those reported for NRTs.

Just last week, the results were published of a New Zealand 657-person clinical trial comparing e-cigarettes delivering a blood level of about 1/10 that of smoking to nicotine patches and to e-cigarettes with no nicotine. The quit rates were 7.3%, 5.8%, and 4.1% respectively. These differences were not considered statistically significant, which is not the same thing as "no different." NewZ ecig clinical study, an “I told you so” | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

How many years worth of testing and widespread general use with no evidence of harm do we need before they stop claiming the products may be harmful? Some go so far as to claim they are "quite harmful." E-cigarettes are ‘quite harmful,’ UK Markey Cancer Center director tells legislative panel | KyForward.com

Enough! If you ANTZ think you can do better to help smokers improve their health, why haven't you done it already? We tried your way already, many times. You're a one-trick pony, and we have found a better performer.

-Rant over-

 

[AgentAnia]

Glanz is mindless, opinionated, knee-jerk anti-vaping zealot. He won't bother to educate himself and never lets facts get in the way of his militant position.

There. This is a personal attack. Flame me! Vocalek is a hero.

Nope, not a personal attack. Yours is a well-thought-out, well-researched, objective analysis based on all the evidence!

 

[gayhalo]

Good read everybody. It has been touched on up there somewhere but to me the big test is thousands of us have vaped for years and if there were any evidence of harm there is an army of ANTZ that would have found it and be screeming from the rooftops.