The original case for the smoking bans was to lower smoking rates, to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke and to promote public health. Enter the electronic cigarette, an amazing device that aligns with the needs of the smoker and lives up to the demands of the anti-smoking organizations.

An electronic cigarette or “e-cigarette” is a battery-powered alternative that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by delivering a vaporized liquid nicotine solution. When you make the switch to an e Cigarette you are really vaping instead of smoking. It gives the user the physical sensation and nicotine hit that smokers crave without tobacco, smoke, or the combustion. It should be a real crowd pleaser to all non-smokers. But it isn’t.

Several anti-smoking groups are going after this product to be included in bans instead of embracing it as a better product than tobacco cigarettes. These groups may be following the misguided propaganda being put out by special interest organizations that have an allegiance to the big business of pharmaceuticals and tobacco. The electronic cigarette produces no second-hand combustion smoke because there is no combustion. The tobacco companies don’t make e cigarettes and probably don’t care much for their existence.

This unconscionable behavior from “people who are supposed to care” makes Kyle Newton, owner of eCigarettesChoice.com, take a step back in disbelief. “I lost my mom, her sister and my grandmother to cigarette related deaths within the last six years. I just wished e cigarettes could have been available a long time ago. If I didn’t believe in this product, I wouldn’t be so adamant about promoting it.”

One organization that shows no particular allegiance to special interest money is Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). In their October 2009 briefing, ASH in the United Kingdom released a favorable position on electronic cigarettes which is the exact opposite position taken by a few the control groups in the United States.

ASH’s UK Position on E-cigarettes
“ASH supports a harm reduction approach to tobacco, that is, we recognize that whilst efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not wish to stop smoking or find it very hard to do so. For this group, we believe that products should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components found in tobacco. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. Therefore, e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure since they do not produce smoke.”

Right now the fate of the electronic cigarette is in the hands of a federal judge for a ruling on who has regulatory authority. The electronic cigarette has been around several years without any reports of harm attributed to its use. The elimination of electronic cigarettes as a choice for smokers would be the death sentence for millions. I would hope that common sense would prevail in deciding which product is less harmful and the opponents of this product would reflect on the magnitude of deaths the that will be on their hands if smokers’ are only given one choice.

electronic cigarettes — Your online e-cigarette superstore that carries the major brands of the electronic cigarette such as SS Choice No.7, Smoking Everywhere, & NJOY. Visit their site at http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com

Original article EarthTimes.

Almost without fail, news articles that attacks the e cigarette has comment areas that are filled with doctors and scientist, along with multitudes of the population showing evidence of the need, want and support for this amazing new product that most ex smokers are calling a “lifesaver”.

Since the FDA was exposed on the faulty testing procedures during their preliminary test on the e cigarette, and using personnel on the advisory board that have clear conflicts of interest concerning the e cigarette industry, the general pubic is already showing signs of looking for other means to get the e cigarette and claiming that they will not use tobacco or what they refer to as “worthless” smoking cessation products by the same pharmaceutical companies that are funding the special interest fight against them.

400,000 smokers a year die from tobacco related illnesses in the United States each year while legislators and special interest protect tobacco companies from being banned through legislation that insulates tobacco and cessation markets from products that do work to eliminate tobacco.

by Tiffany Ellis, original article OfficalWire.

ASH UK has all but put their name on the dotted line in endorsement of the e cigarette as a safe and plausible substitute to the traditional tobacco cigarette with their new report and also agrees with the e cigarette industry that they may be an acceptable alternative to tobacco.

“ASH supports a harm reduction approach to tobacco, that is, we recognize that while efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not wish to stop smoking or find it very hard to do so. For this group, we believe that products should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components found in tobacco. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. Therefore, e cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure since they do not produce smoke.”

While ASH does believe that e cigarettes may be a good alternative to tobacco, they have some concerns about the e cigarette and states “most deliver a low dose of nicotine which may not give a typical smoker a sufficient ‘hit’ to satisfy cravings, discouraging smokers from continuing to use them.”

ASH UK does not seem to be worried about high doses of nicotine, but rather that the e cigarette does not deliver enough nicotine which is a direct contradiction of the American based ASH, which has been openly caught in a conflict of interest in its attack on e cigarettes in the United States by accepting funds from major pharmaceutical companies who may compete in an open market someday concerning cessation products.

By Tiffany Ellis.

That’s because they are electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes. These battery-powered devices do not create smoke but provide a mist of nicotine to the user’s lungs.

These items are about to become better known because a federal judge is expected to decide shortly on whether the Food and Drug Administration has authority to regulate them. The devices, which do not contain tobacco, are already being sold around the country.

From the FDA’s viewpoint, the e-smokes are “drug delivery” devices, the same as nicotine gum, which is regulated by the agency. The industry association for the product describes it as an “alternative to tobacco,” and the association says it would like to work with the FDA. The public-health community is divided, with some wanting to see more research on the items and others seeing them as a way to help people quit tobacco use.

Already, e-cigarettes are entering the public arena.

One airline, Ryanair, which mainly operates in Europe, not only permits their use on flights, but also sells them to passengers. Some “no smoking” restaurants in the United States are permitting their use, say advocates for the product.

The devices are also available as e-cigars and e-pipes.

“Two years ago, no one had ever heard of these things,” says Matt Salmon, president of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) in Washington.

“Today, there is an estimate there are 300,000 users, but I think it’s in excess of that,” says Mr. Salmon, an antismoking advocate and former congressman.

In the e-cigarettes, most of which are made in China, there is no combustion of tobacco. Instead, the device contains a lithium battery. That heats up an atomizer, which turns the nicotine into a vapor.

When the user inhales the vapor, the device’s tip glows with a red LED light to mimic the experience of smoking a cigarette.

On e-cigarette websites, former tobacco users offer testimonials about how the new product has saved their lives.

But John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School who also heads up an organization called Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), wonders if there is a cardiovascular risk for e-smoke users. And, he adds, “We don’t know to what extent kids get hooked.”

Enter the FDA.

They have looked at those websites and more. “Some of the product information says you can use the e-cigarettes to help quit smoking,” says Siobhan DeLancey, a spokeswoman for the FDA. The agency believes the products should be brought to it for premarket approval, and data should be presented showing the product is safe and effective for its intended use.

In July, the FDA did preliminary research, buying some of the products online and at shopping-center kiosks. The products were “inconsistent” in their levels of nicotine, Ms. DeLancey says.

However, some of the urban legends about the FDA wanting to ban the products are not true, DeLancey says. “What we are saying is for them to be sold, you should be able to evaluate how safe and effective they are – especially if they are a smoking replacement used over several years, perhaps a lifetime,” she says.

In February, one manufacturer, Smoking Everywhere, which is not a member of the ECA, sued the FDA, claiming it did not have jurisdiction. Shortly, federal judge Richard Leon in Washington is expected to rule.

“It will be a seminal moment,” says Mr. Banzhaf.

Article by By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor.

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

Amazon.com has reportedly begin sending the following message to merchants. “We are writing because it has come to our attention that you have listed a product that we have determined is inappropriate for Amazon.com. We have prohibited the sale of electronic cigarettes, electronic cigars, electronic pipes, nicotine nebulizers, refill material for any of these, and similar products on our site. A list of ASINs removed from our catalog may be found at the end of this message. Amazon.com reserves the right to remove any listing we determine to be illegal or inappropriate for our site. For more information, please see the Restricted Products section of our Help pages. To avoid the blocking of your selling account, please do not relist this product or any other prohibited content on our site.”

Amazon’s action was taken after receiving a notice of potential liability from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a national antismoking organization, which earlier filed a legal petition urging the FDA to take action against the products until they were approved for sale by the agency. ASH also sent a very similar warning letter by Certified Mail Receipt Requested to PayPal before that organization likewise cracked down on e-cigarette sales.

A newly released blog post has revealed some evidence of foul play by John Banzhaf, that prides himself on being refered to as a “legal terrorist” and has been a thorn in the sides of many companies across the U.S., costing the companies millions in legal fee’s.

The blogger, known only as “admin” has made several post on John Banzhaf and ASH, claiming that the professor of law is nothing more than a “leach” on society and a “danger” to freedom in the United States.

The blogger shows some compelling evidence of falsehoods and potential public deceptions by this famous, but scrutinized attorney. There is also allegations of a conflict of interest in the ongoing e-cigarette battle that is currently underway in a federal court because of financial ties between Pfizer and John Banzhaf’s ASH .

Many bloggers have attacked this attorney in the past because of his attacks on McDonalds and other food service companies over patrons becoming over weight and it looks like the bloggers are on him again over the e cigarette because of claimed “ double standards and hypocrisy”.

by Tiffany Ellis

1. That brief exposure to small amounts of drifting tobacco smoke can cause a heart attack.
2. That E Cigarettes cause problems for both smokers and non-smokers.
3. That third-hand smoke can cause serious risks for both smokers and non-smokers.
4. That smoker’s breath can be hazardous to non-smokers health.

The claims can be seen here.

These or similar claims have been used:

• to separate children from parents
• to suggest an apartheid-like system of denying smokers access to public areas
• to bar smokers from using hospital waiting rooms
• to prevent parents from seeing their children even when parents smoke outside
• to force companies, under threat of litigation, to move workers from offices they share with non-smokers
• to support a ban on the electronic cigarette, an alternative to a product which kills 4.8 million smokers a year world wide

ASH maintains that all their claims have a scientific basis.

E Cigarette Direct asked three Professors of Medicine to examine these claims.

Professor Brad Rodu, a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louiseville who holds an endowed chair in Tobacco Harm Reduction Research, dismissed the claims, stating that:

“Quite simply, these statements are either gross exaggeration or pure fiction.”

Arguing that “third-hand smoke” had no scientific credibility, he suggested that:

“Extending Banzhaf’s logic, non-garlic eaters may be able to absorb the possible health benefits of garlic by moving into the vicinity of garlic aficionados.”

Professor Michael Siegel, Professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health, also criticised the health claims, in particular arguing that:

“There is no existing evidence that e-cigarettes pose a risk for non-smokers.”

In addition to criticising the claims Professor Carl Phillips, Associate Professor at the University of Alberta School of Public Health, argued that ASH’s claims represented an example of political actors twisting science for their own gain. This, he suggested, caused damage above and beyond the issue of smoking:

“…simply finding some reason to propose a particular hypothesis … and then declaring it to be true without evidence is not just unethical – it also damages the public’s ability to make sense of science.”

The scientists full comments can be read here: Scientists Analyse ASH Health Clams.

When asked to comment, Matt Salmon, President of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA), stated:

“The ECA believes that adult smokers should have the choice of an appropriate alternative to traditional cigarettes, and urge those with a different political or financial motivation to respect the freedom of those who select e-cigarettes.

“Members of the ECA do not, and will not market to minors or make false claims about their product. That is a requirement of being recognized by the ECA, and those that are members are the leading companies that have the best interest of the committed smoker at heart. The ECA has even gone a step further, sending a letter to every U.S. House member and U.S. Senator urges legislation that makes it illegal to sell electronic cigarettes to anyone under the legal smoking age.”

E Cigarette Direct is an online retailer of the electronic cigarette, the electronic cigar and the e-pipe.

Check out my other xtranormal video FDA You So Crazy!