They are also praising Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent decision not to veto a bill that could have banned the sale of the product in the state.

The typical electronic cigarette mimics a real cigarette but is not lit and does not produce any smoke. It allows users to puff on it to produce heated nicotine mist.

“It doesn’t make sense to try and take a product that does not have carbon monoxide or tar and remove it while the product that is known to kill is not banned. We’re happy that common sense has prevailed,” said Matt Salmon, president of the Washington D.C.-based Electronic Cigarettes Association.

A significant difference between the electronic cigarette and actual tobacco is that it allows users to modify their levels of nicotine, said Gregory Puetz of Fontana.

For more than a year, Puetz has been independently selling the product because he feels it is a viable alternative to tobacco.

“I’m not against regulation and making sure it doesn’t get to the under-aged,” he said. “It allows (smokers) to decide what they want to do.”

For Salmon, a former Arizona state senator, the driving forces behind the bill were special interest groups and the tobacco industry, which may have felt that electronic cigarettes could pose a threat to tobacco sales.

“Cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year. We haven’t had any single (electronic) cigarette that has harmed someone’s health,” he said. “It makes one wonder what the motivation is.”

Salmon said he wouldn’t mind if the lawmakers tried to rewrite the bill so that it regulates the age of users, which he said was the original intent of the bill.

But Salmon said he knows the medical field is split on the product.

The product has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the World Health Organization.

WHO has said there is a need to strengthen global tobacco product regulation on products such as electronic cigarettes.

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights is disappointed in the governor’s veto, said Annie Tegen, senior program manager for the Berkeley-based advocacy group.

“We don’t believe these products are safe, and we see it as a valid health concern,” Tegen said.

In July, the FDA released a preliminary study which found that the product contains carcinogens, she said.

But in order to fully understand the health implications of smoking electronic cigarettes, more research needs to be conducted, Tegen said.

Despite the insufficient amount of testing, Tegen said the organization believes the electronic cigarette should not be considered as a substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes and is concerned about the risks of inhaling second-hand smoke from the electronic version.

For that reason, Tegen said users of the “e-cig” should not smoke it indoors.

Puetz said he thought the bill was bad policymaking from legislators, due in part to misinformation about the product.

Both Puetz and Salmon said they have become advocates for the industry because they feel it’s a viable alternative.

The governor’s decision could have implications nationally, Salmon said.

“California policy has always been a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the country,” he said. “A lot of national policy starts in California and this will send a message to the rest of the country.”

By Liset Marquez.
Original article & comments on DailyBulletin.

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