Interesting Article...

[DAYVAPE]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/08/e.cigarette/index.html?iref=allsearch

Study: 'Electronic cigarettes' don't deliverBy Paul Courson, CNN

February 9, 2010 12:46 p.m. EST

Nurse Barbara Kilgalen demonstrates an e-cigarette during research at Virginia Commonwealth University.STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Nicotine delivery system same "as puffing on an unlit cigarette," researcher says

Virginia Commonwealth University studies "no-smoke tobacco" devices

FDA has halted imports of the devices as it studies their effect on health

RELATED TOPICS

Smoking and Tobacco Use

Food and Drug Administration

Virginia Commonwealth University

Washington (CNN) -- "Electronic cigarettes" that vaporize nicotine juice to inhale instead of smoke from burning tobacco do not deliver as promised, according to research at Virginia Commonwealth University.

"They are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette," said Dr. Thomas Eissenberg, at the school's Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies.

His study, funded by the federal National Cancer Institute, is the first by U.S. doctors to check the function of so-called "no-smoke tobacco" devices, which are unregulated in the United States for sale or use.

The units are shaped like a cigarette and contain a battery that heats a filament to vaporize liquid nicotine in a refillable cartridge. Smokers buy the devices to get around no-smoking restrictions and to attempt to quit conventional cigarettes.

Some users nickname what they're doing as "vaping" instead of smoking, to reflect the vapor produced by the heating element. The devices are marketed as an alternative to smoking, but retailers avoid making claims about health or safety.

Fans have established a Web site, www.e-cigarette-forum.com. Founder Oliver Kershaw said the site "is the largest e-smokers community online with some 26,000 members, most of whom are in the U.S."

Jimi Jackson, a former tobacco smoker in Richmond, Virginia, who sells electronic cigarettes, is convinced there are immediate health advantages in avoiding the known cancer-causing substances in the smoke of a burning cigarette.

"I smoked 37 years, and when I found them, I was, like, 'Thank, you Jesus,' " Jackson said with a laugh, as a reporter visited his shop, No Smoke Virginia, coincidentally just a few blocks from where the research was conducted at Virginia Commonwealth.

In March, the Food and Drug Administration imposed a ban on continued imports of the devices, pending regulatory review for any health risks.

The latest clinical evidence suggests users are not getting the addictive substance they get from smoking tobacco. "These e-cigs do not deliver nicotine," Eissenberg said of the findings he expects to publish in an upcoming issue Tobacco Control, a product of the British Medical Journal Group.

This past summer, Eissenberg recruited smokers without prior experience using e-cigarettes to volunteer to use two popular brands of the devices for a set period. The 16 subjects were regularly measured in a clinical setting for the presence of nicotine in their bodies, their reported craving for conventional cigarettes, and certain physiological effects such as a change in heart rate.

"Ten puffs from either of these electronic cigarettes with a 16 mg nicotine cartridge delivered little to no nicotine," the study found.

But the units may deliver hazardous chemicals, according to preliminary checks by federal regulators. In a notice to importers, the FDA blocked continued shipments after finding diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans.

The government's statement noted there are no health warnings on the products, and that "the FDA analyses detected carcinogens, including nitrosamines."

The notice of the import ban says "the product appears to be a combination drug-device," that "requires pre-approval, registration and listing with the FDA" in order to be marketed in the United States.

A company challenging the import ban claims in federal court documents to have sold 600,000 of the devices in a year's time through a network of 120 distributors in the United States.

"We are on the verge of going out of business, which is why we are suing the FDA in U.S. District Court," said Washington, attorney Kip Schwartz, representing a company called "Smoking Everywhere," a U.S. wholesaler that was importing the devices from China.

The lawsuit questions the FDA's authority to block shipments of a non-tobacco product, and says the agency has violated its statutory process for product review. Liquid nicotine is available on the open market through pharmaceutical houses and vendors who sell e-cigarettes.

A judge January 14 ruled the FDA does not have such authority, but the agency has taken the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which has yet to decide the case. The appeals panel issued a stay against the judge's ruling until it can rule on the agency's appeal.

Meanwhile, based on the judge's ruling, lawyers for the importers have filed a request to compel the FDA to lift its import ban, saying the agency is not likely to win its appeal.

The filing says "although e-cigarettes have been sold since 2007, FDA has not identified a single instance, either in this Court or below, of an adverse health effect from e-cigarettes."

President Obama, who has described himself as an occasional smoker, has been offered one of the devices by Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns. The Republican lawmaker's office said the president did not respond.

An administration spokesman last year said the White House was not aware of the offer.

In a copy of a letter to the chief executive dated March 26, Stearns wrote, "I have recently given out e-cigarettes to a few members of Congress and they have become quite a hit."

Sales of the devices continue at shopping mall kiosks and small storefront retailers, apparently drawing from stock imported before the FDA began to block shipments from overseas suppliers.

[VegasVapor]

Moved to Electronic Cigarette News.

[kitsune]

Interesting article indeed--

If we can get the congress hooked--we will win this hands down.

I still absolutely love when they bring diethylene glycol into this--very trace amounts in one cartridge tested--like we weren't smoking worse. They always reference to anti-freeze. diethylene glycol is in many, many products

Uses

DEG is used as a building block in organic synthesis, e.g. of morpholine and 1,4-dioxane. It is a solvent for nitrocellulose, resins, dyes, oils, and other organic compounds. It is a humectant for tobacco, cork, printing ink, and glue.^[4] It is also a component in brake fluid, lubricants, wallpaper strippers, artificial fog solutions, and heating/cooking fuel.^[1] In personal care products (e.g. skin cream and lotions, deodorants) DEG is often replaced by selected diethylene glycol ethers. A dilute solution of diethylene glycol can also be used as a coolant; however, ethylene glycol is much more commonly used.

Things that make you go HMMMM...

[ThaHodgehound]

Yeah I think they are wrong on the antifreeze thing! If my thinking is not clouded by my E cig vapor, someone has their glycol compounds mixed up! There MAY be a little DEG in SOME brands of it.

Maybe we should get a list of all the smokers in congress and send them a free PV to try.....

Edited June 24, 2010 by ThaHodgehound

[snubber]

Very interesting article, curious to see if any of those members from congress give it the thumbs up.

[ddavelarsen]

That was a slanted non-study if I ever read of one. What kills me is that some people take this crap at face value - like for example, congress? This is nothing but FUD. We al know that our devices deliver nicotine or we'd all be smoking truly deadly compounds. What's with these people?

Money, of course.

[FTJoe]

I wonder if this supports what I have said about the addiction and Speakeasy on nicotine. I believe cigarettes delivered nicotine and that felt good. Are brains register that and like any good drug addicts, when we stress, eat, are bored, whatever, brain says do that again. But it really only cares about the action as it has linked that to that good nicotine stuff, it doesn't know if the drug was delivered at that moment. It satisfies the craving to smoke, not to get nic. Its only later on as the brain truly goes through withdrawal it shows signs but withdrawal always seemed to be very insidious and subtle. And before ddave gets in a huff, ;-), I am not suggesting the actual addiction isn't real, just that there is a learned behavior related to addiction and a physical addiction and folks have varying degrees of each. I think when I went to 0 then two weeks later my brain said forget it and I didn't really need to vape anymore, I actually think I had re-educated my brain. This is a person that would tempt the fates to have that last cig in an airport before a flight, who tried everything to quit, drugs, patches, everything and failed miserably at it.

So maybe the amount of nicotine being introduced is small, but enough to not have the user freaking out, blood levels are enough to keep the brain from withdrawal, etc. But the act of vaping stops the urge to do the hand to mouth that the brain is really wanting. I think they really need to let the scientists back off and get people in here that understand addiction to do the testing. But this will always be about the pharma aspect not the addiction.

I know I'm not explaining it very well, but as ddave points out, how else do they explain all the people here who are successful and some that really have the nic monkey, are 36 or 48 and/or still supplement with cigs but many many others are just fine 1t at 16 or even lower? And I'm not convinced there is not an addictive aspect to the other 1000+ chemicals in analogs. Speakeasy used to write about the half-life and how nic really wasn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be and I think he is correct.

[Burn]

That was a slanted non-study if I ever read of one. What kills me is that some people take this crap at face value - like for example, congress? This is nothing but FUD. We al know that our devices deliver nicotine or we'd all be smoking truly deadly compounds. What's with these people?

Money, of course.

Why David,

Are you suggesting that a report generated at a University that coincidentally happens to be located in a state where tobacco farming is a main industry would produce a report that was not in the best interest of the public but instead in the best interest of the local economy?

For shame, Mr. Larson, for shame.....

[ddavelarsen]

Don't freak out on me FTJoe, but I'm with you on this one. I think it's all about addiction, which has a 'habit' component - call it ritual - as well as a physiological dependency on the drug, in this case nicotine. Nicotine is a pretty benign substance in the concentrations we use it in, no worse than caffeine. And most of us are probably caffeine addicts too; I sure am. We can get our satisfaction with varying amounts of the drug we use; half our addiction is the act of using. Think of all the paraphernalia we use vaping -- device collections, atty preferences, all the little bottles of liquid; DIYers are probably the worst! Some of us are really into our PVs, to the point they make a personal statement.

An honest study of the efficacy of vaping would include all these factors, just as you said. But psychology is too soft a science, can't be quantified the way measuring chemicals can be. For what it's worth, I totally know for a fact that we can get a sufficient quantity of nicotine from vaping to satisfy our physiological requirement, notwithstanding the whole ritual thing. So that bogus study didn't prove anything to me. That was totally FUD and nothing more.

[ddavelarsen]

Why David,

Are you suggesting that a report generated at a University that coincidentally happens to be located in a state where tobacco farming is a main industry would produce a report that was not in the best interest of the public but instead in the best interest of the local economy?

For shame, Mr. Larson, for shame.....

LOL! Okay, I'm busted.

[kitsune]

For me personally--I am a 95% psychological habit. Its the act and the ritual--the pacifier effect.....

Honestly I don't care how much nicotine is or isn't in my liquids--it all about the throat hit !!!!

Very few studies are completely unbiased or without agenda--any study can be used to show whatever the studier is looking for.....

[FTJoe]

Don't freak out on me FTJoe, but I'm with you on this one.

Too late!! ;-)

I don't see where we disagree. There are two components, physical and habit. I believe people have varying degrees and reasons for reaching for an analog or PV. Sometimes people like you really need to juice up (those really addicted to nic), and sometimes the habit kicks in, I'm stressed out, brain goes gimme gimme gimme.

I know many people who only smoke on the weekends or only when they are stressed. My wife is one of them, it amazed me that the tables have turned, I have to make sure I'm packing some PV for her or she will buy a pack on the weekend. I had to leave a pool party last weekend because I forgot it. That is NOT a nicotine addiction, nicotine is gone from the body in a relatively short amount of time, it is pure reflex and habit, brain remembered a few weeks back what made it feel good, go do some of that.

My point is I think its a spectrum of different levels of addiction/habit/reasons people smoke/vape. That's why I'm wondering if, for some of us, even a little nic trickling in is enough to not go through withdrawal, and give a decent throat hit, feel of smoking. The brain is awfully stupid when it comes to habits.

That is why I think that study in NZ is doomed, 8 weeks of 16mg and 0mg then quit. Two groups of ex-smokers freaking out, 0mg group in the beginning, but if they can get past the nic addiction they might be okay until they have to put the PV down, forget about the 16mg, probably okay until the 8 weeks is up, they have no hope. But I bet if they go back, its to PVs.

But psychology is too soft a science, can't be quantified the way measuring chemicals can be. For what it's worth,

Maybe we disagree here but the best addictive scientists out there are experts on the physiology of the brain, no soft science there. Mappings of the addiction and other areas of the brain during a study are quite revealing. They also have a good empirical handle on addictive studies that have been done, I disagree the the study of addiction is soft. Many many rodents and other animals including humans would disagree with that.

I should have also added that its obvious this was a conclusion looking for a study.

Edited June 25, 2010 by FTJoe

[DAYVAPE]

Some great points made here!! I studied alot of this in college while getting my Psychology degree... interesting stuffs.

[BEERCITYVAPRZ]

I LOVE ECIG SLANG!

[BEERCITYVAPRZ]

Jim Jackson said "Thank You Jesus" that was cool, that guy was stoked about this invention!!!!!!