November 2, 2009 — Switching to low-risk nicotine products, like smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and pharmaceutical nicotine, offers smokers a chance to almost completely eliminate their health risks. While these alternative products still pose some very small health risk, a new study at the University of Alberta School of Public Health in Canada shows that in most cases switching is better for reducing lifetime risk than trying to quit. The study by Prof. Carl V. Phillips, just published in Harm Reduction Journal, shows that for most smokers, immediately switching to a low-risk alternative will lower their risk of dying from their habit more than quitting eventually, even if they use the smoke-free product for the rest of their lives.

For the average smoker, the study finds, smoking for just one more month poses a greater health risk than a lifetime of using one of the increasingly popular low risk products like snuff, snus, the new electronic imitation cigarettes, nicotine lozenges, or some other non-combustion alternative. Switching products is a strategy known as “tobacco harm reduction.” “It has long been known that while no nicotine product is completely harmless, harm reduction products pose only about 1% the risk from smoking,” says Dr. Phillips, “and this difference is so great that for the average smoker, using a smokeless product for the rest of his life poses about the same risk as 30 days of continuing to smoke.” What this means is that most smokers, even those who plan to quit soon, will not quit before damaging their health far more than using low-risk products for a lifetime. Moreover, for some older smokers, smoking for a day or two more poses a greater risk than using a low-risk product for the rest of their life. Since switching products is often much more appealing to smokers than quitting nicotine entirely, this option is more practical than quitting and leaves the former smoker happier and less likely to relapse. Those who switch can still choose to quit entirely later, lowering their risk further still.

Dr. Phillips and his public health research group publish the website www.TobaccoHarmReduction.org, and have worked for years to educate smokers about the advantages of low-risk alternatives. The new study, which also looks at some of the history and politics of tobacco harm reduction, suggests that efforts to promote abstinence as the only healthy choice may be killing thousands of smokers per month. Discouraging switching causes the deaths of far more smokers than could ever die from using low-risk nicotine products for their entire lives.

This study comes on the heels of a major study by Peter Lee, published in another BioMed Central journal, BMC Medicine, that showed that the cancer risk from smokeless tobacco is so small it cannot even be reliably measured. Given the ample evidence about the risks of different products, “there is no scientific basis for denying the benefits of tobacco harm reduction” says Phillips, “and it is time that we offer smokers honest public health interventions rather than the moralizing and deadly ‘abstinence-only’ approach.” The abstinence-only approach leaves many ex-smokers miserable and leaves millions of others no choice but to keep smoking. Some activists object to alternative products because they let smokers stay addicted to nicotine or allow companies to profit from selling the products. But, asks Phillips, “is addiction to a low-risk habit — not much different from drinking coffee — really such a problem, or is the profitability of some companies so terrible that it outweighs the millions of lives that could be saved by harm reduction?”

Contact: Dr. Carl V. Phillips, Associate Professor, University of Alberta School of Public Health: cvphilo(at)gmail(dot)com; +1 651-503-6746.

Professor Phillips is an epidemiologist and health policy researcher, journal editor, popular educator, and consultant. He and his work group are leading advocates of tobacco harm reduction, and he advises and works with many other organizations who are trying to promote it, some of which are companies that hope to profit from selling low-risk nicotine products. The www.TobaccoHarmReduction.org research group at the University of Alberta School of Public Health is partially supported by an unrestricted (completely hands-off) grant from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company. No funder, company, or other organization played any role in initiating, designing, or conducting this research.

Source TobbacoHarmReduction.org

Sorry this video is up a little later than i wanted because the switch on my original Protege’ died after roughly 4 days of use. I sent it back to Casey and she fixed it up no problem and shipped it back. The whole process probably took no more than 4 days total.

anyway , holy crap the Protege’ is bad ass!
believe me when i say I’m being completely objective here , but this blows every other 3.7v device completely away. The batteries seem to never die and with the option of adapters for multiple atomizers the Protege’ probably makes it one of the most versatile device available.

This is not just another 3.7v mod , it’s machined out of stainless steel right here in the USA. It feels insanely durable and it keeps that “fresh of the charger” feel ALL-DAY-LONG.

i have had about a week and a half to use this and it has become my all day every day device without a doubt.

worth every penny i paid for it and then some.

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.

By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY.

A few of us attended this Public Hearing, Spikey, Dumwaldo, Gregg Perrielli, Donel White, who is the owner of Smoking Everywhere in the Garden State Mall on Route 17 in Paramus, NJ and myself SMOKIE, but I was video tapping this hearing, and I did get up to speak, but no video of me, because I had to but the recorder down.
These four Vapers did an outstanding presentation, as for myself I am not a great public speaker, but I did express my views to everyone.
I especially was very impressed with Spikey, and Dumwaldo, those politicians were stunned, with their mouths open at times looking at each other with disbelief of how educated they were about e-cigs.
This is the first time I have owned, and used a recorder, plus it is the first time uploading, editing, etc, for me, so please give me a BREAK, lol.
I could only do 10 min at a time on YouTube, so here is the first video of Spikey only, that I have edited so far, I will have 2 or 3 more videos of the other Vapers speaking to follow, I know don’t quit my day job.

I congratulate them, they did a great job.

The Daily Star has wrote about it in “The Goss” :

HELL raiser Rhys Ifans has been up to his old tricks again. Or has he?

The Welsh caner, 41, was seconds away from being arrested on board a flight to LA with Lady Victoria Hervey, 33, after attendants thought he sparked up a fag.

Passengers in first class complained when the scruffy star was seen “smoking.”

However, it turns out he was chugging on a e-cigarette – a plastic device which glows at the tip and gives a nicotine hit.
Rock. And. Roll.

Also Monsters and Critics have posted an article :

Rhys Ifans caused a mid-air panic by appearing to smoke a cigarette on a plane.

The ‘Notting Hill’ actor was jetting from London to Los Angeles when he began puffing on the white stick – smoking on planes is banned – causing furious passengers to complain to staff on the Virgin Atlantic flight.

The 41-year-old star caused further concern when he twisted the cigarette around and pressed the burning red ember into his lip – until staff realised it was a fake cigarette.

Rhys was using a SmokeStik, a new invention which allows smokers to get their nicotine hit without having to puff on a cigarette.

The version Rhys was using, the SmokeStik Royale, was designed by socialite Lady Victoria Hervey and features her family’s crest.

SmokeStik spokesman Brian Culwell said: “The fact that SmokeStik doesn’t fall foul of the smoking ban makes it ideal for people who find it tough to sit through a lengthy transatlantic flight without cigarettes. The only down side is occasionally you may get challenged by people who mistake them for the real thing!”
Other fans of the product include Leonardo DiCaprio, Paris Hilton and Simon Cowell.

The SmokeStik Royale is available with over 10% discount from Get SmokeStik UK & Get SmokeStik USA.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 400 without my signature.

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

Items defined as “tobacco products” are legal for anyone over the age of 18. 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.

For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

You can view the original PDF here or the images below.

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.”

Original article : Suburban Journals by Jim Merkel.
Featuring VF members Treece & JustJulie.

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.

New York City
ACSH is a non-profit group that accepts funding from a wide array of foundations, corporations and individuals.