Compilation of net critique of e-cig ban

American Council on Science and Health:

The FDA has approved other nicotine-delivery systems in the form of gums and patches -- and they have been abysmal failures. The smoking cessation rates using these devices is less than 15 percent after one year, condemning millions of addicted smokers to a lingering death. We desperately need other alternatives. But the FDA has now joined a long list of so-called public-health organizations -- including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Lung Association -- whose collective motto seems to be "quit or die." Not only do they reject e-cigarettes, but they also condemn other smokeless products like snus, which have a mere fraction of the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes.

Craig Youngblood, president of the InLife e-cigarette company:
"In our product you have nicotine or no nicotine, PEG, and some flavoring. In cigarettes you have nicotine, PEG, and 4,000 chemicals and 43 carcinogens," Youngblood last April told WebMD. "I am a proponent of harm reduction. People have rights and choices and should be allowed to make them."

i am 63 been told to stop smoking i have a ,100 year old lung ,but i couldnt stop until i watched the scottish man in videos about e/cigs not had a real cig for 4 weeks,thanks a million Grin ::)can anyone tell me who he is would like to thank him.

Most of all the claims made in that article were unfounded propoganda. I agree with the people that are saying take 5 minutes and google E-Cigs and other basic things pertaining to the matter like Propylene Glycol and such. While it’s not for certain that Propylene Glycol is 100% safe, it most certainly can’t be any worse than the hundreds of thousands of chemicals in conventional tobacco. Smoking conventional cigarettes will kill you, no if’s ands or buts about it!

The issue here is clearly not one of public safety, we have all known for years that the Government is not concerned with our health. The Government is concerned with taxation and making a buck when and where they can. The E Cig/Pipes and others are in a technical grey area legally but that seems to be changing because Government and big business are in bed together.

adamcall911: (youtube)
Money grabbing, that's all it is, my whole family quit smoking all because of e cigs, that's 6 people there, and a large group of my friends and work colleges have quit also. i would rather them put a tax on e cigs than ban them ,they should be ashamed of themselves, i have got 23 people to sign the petition so everyone else should to, all you need is an email address and a name, i’m pretty sure everyone has those.

ed: (youtube)
to adamcall911, Can you imagine the loss of profits if the masses begin to switch to e-cigs? Profits derived from insurance, medical bills, taxes for cigs, and not forgetting the reduction of generic fear in society through the ailments caused by traditional cigs. If we were to reduce fear, self-absorption is compromised. Without that, how on earth are we going to maintain a system based on self-absorption, greed, and mutual alienation? Please be understanding.

My husband and I quit smoking using e-cigarettes. We haven’t felt better in our whole lives. We’ve been smokers since about the age of 13… which is 13 years of smoking. We have been recommending E-cigarettes to everyone we know that smokes. And I will continue to do so. Government is just pissed because they don’t know how they are going to be able to tax it. And you have people out there that make up “my nose, it irritated my throat..” non smokers, who have never tried smoking, and cant seem to understand that sometimes it happens. People get addicted. At least it wasn’t on drugs! PLEASE dont ban E-cigs. Then we would have to go back to smoking… and thats something I really dont want to do. Quitting is so very hard to do, and E-cigarettes have done nothing but let us do that.

Joel Nitzkin of the American Association of Public Health Physicians:
Denying 45 million cigarette smokers access to exponentially less hazardous smokefree nicotine alternatives would result in millions of preventable deaths among smokers, millions of nonsmokers continuing to be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution, and tens of thousands of e-cigarettes users reverting back to smoking cigarettes." He adds that "it is absurd for the FDA to even contemplate protecting the deadliest nicotine products (cigarettes) from market competition by the least hazardous nicotine products."

Let's not complicate matters. Doing so only enables the likes of the FDA to move against e-cigs by focusing on its possible dangers. The only point we have to consider at this point is if e-cigs are safer than traditional cigs. All one has to do is to look at what comprises either product. Is the FDA advocating the use of traditional cigarettes with its 4000+ chemicals and carcinogens as opposed to e-cigs that do not contain them. Sure, e-cigs is not as safe as not smoking altogether. But all that has to be considered is if they are safer than traditional cigs. Their stating that e-cigs can cause racing pulses, etc, are also applicable to traditional cigs. But what is applicable to traditional cigs is not applicable to e-cigs as the latter do not contain as much negative components.

That's capitalism for you mate. Profit is paramount. Is anyone surprised that governments are willing to kill their citizens for profit. After all, they have historically not been averse to killing the citizens of other states for profit. So if it is good for the foreign goose, why is it not good for the local gander eh?

In a nutshell, banning e-cigs for its dangers is like banning low-tar and low-nicotine 'normal' cigarettes for its dangers without considering the greater dangers that comes with high-tar and high-nicotine cigarettes.

Governments who ban the e-cig are guilty of causing smoke related deaths among those who would have switched to e-cigs and not gotten cig-related illnesses becos of the switch. This is a direct assault on the lives of citizens for the sake of profit. Are you guys alright with governments who are willing to kill you for money?

Strictly limiting who sells this product could make it less available than cigarettes which is enough under many circumstances to make cigarettes the rational choice when deciding between the two. In other words, limiting the availability nudges the population toward the more harmful choice, the same choice that the same government keeps trying to discourage by other means.

By the way, if the FDA wants to ban e-cigs, perhaps they ought to ban sorethroat-relieving glycerin as well. I personally mix my own concoction of e-cig liquid which comprises nothing other than 'boots glycerin b.p', water, and flavouring found in cakes, etc.

There's no propylene glycol in my 'vaping' diet as i'm sceptical of its effects as well. No nicotine in my concoction either. And as i don't take more than half a tablespoonful of glycerin a day in the course of my e-'smoking', i don't see any dangers at all. This has helped me cut down my smoking by 70% a day after close to 3 decades of FDA-approved cancer-causing cigarettes that contain far more numerous and dangerous components.

Instead of regulating and improving the contents of e-cigs, they'd rather we go back to far more dangerous traditional cigarettes? We should take these people to the world court and have them tried for crimes against humanity.

Just for a moment, assume I am a fanatical environmentalist [mwaaahahaha!!] and I decide to sell my petrol car and go for an electric one? Let us then assume that the government bans electric cars? What am I going to do? Do I give up driving altogether? No. I go back to driving a petrol one. It’s logical. The same logic can equally be applied to smoking.

There is a major push to have electronic cigarettes banned. The arguments are many but basically they boil down to “they are full of carcinogens” [which is a load of bollix] or “they encourage young people to smoke” which presumably means that sticking a white pencil in your mouth is tantamount to encouraging smoking.

The arguments against electronic cigarettes are nonsensical. I cannot think of one single reason why they should be banned.

ed: (youtube) singapore you can get fined about 2500quid if you vape e-cigs. No fines if you smoke cancer-causing ones.


  1. I want to start smoking so that I can use e cigarettes or maybe join that "Stop smoking with the President" campaign. If e cigarettes stink and produce 2nd hand smoke like normal cigarettes, I support banning both like we do in some places in VA.


Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.