Electronic Cigarettes Should Be Banned = Why?

Michael Angelo

3/25/2013

Mrs. Vallin

Mohave Community College

Eng. 101

In 2004 the first Electronic Cigarette (E-Cigarette) was created by a pharmacist in China as a smoking cession aid, but it wasn’t until 2006-2007 that it became readily available around the world. The product became very popular with the smoking community and helped millions quit smoking within the first two years. Ever since the product threatened the tobacco industry many problems have arisen including bans and legal battles. Are there enough reasons to actually ban e-cigarettes or is it just to keep the huge tobacco industry alive? Should electronic cigarettes be banned from use?

The first attack on electronic cigarettes was September 2008. The World Health Organization wanted to discuss the new electronic cigarette device. The meeting did not discuss any sort of health risks or benefits concerning the device but instead banned any reference to them as being a smoking cession aid. The reason this was an attack towards electronic cigarettes is because they were intended to be used as an aid to quit smoking, and now they can not be branded in that fashion. The World Health Organization did not have any evidence that electron cigarettes are dangerous or cause any sort of health concerns to users of the product. Without being labeled as a smoking cessation aid, the product could not be evaluated by the FDA and would lose a lot of support because of it. FDA approval is what got nicotine gum and nicotine patches off the ground. Without FDA approval the product may seem unsafe to consumers and halt sales. However without proper evidence or reasoning, sales would continue just under the conditions that the product had to be labeled differently. Eventually the electronic cigarette would have to be branded as a smoking alternative (Nebehay, 2008).

Soon after the World Health Organization’s discussion on e-cigarettes, actual studies began to test for harmful chemicals and effects of the device. The extensive tests conducted in New Zealand covered every aspect to be tested ranging from the battery to the nicotine fluid to be vaporized. The fluid contained in the cartridge is composed of nicotine, flavoring, and Propylene Glycol which makes up 95% of the solution. Propylene Glycol is used as a solvent in the device to aid the nicotine in the vaporizing process. The New Zealand tests concluded that e-cigarettes contained no known carcinogens or toxins dangerous to humans. The study even stated that electronic cigarettes are over 1000 times safer than cigarettes and was deemed a safe alternative to smoking (Laugesen, 2008).

Soon after the New Zealand report was released the FDA still deemed electronic cigarettes unsafe due to the fact the product contained Propylene Glycol (PG). The FDA stated that PG made the device more harmful than a normal cigarette even though the FDA approved Propylene Glycol as being generally recognized as safe (FDA, 2006). PG is a standard component in a huge variety of products including cleaner. The majority of the uses of Propylene Glycol are found in the medical field. PG is used in intravenous (IV) drips as a lubricant and solvent, but a more comparable use of PG is that it’s used in inhalers. PG is contained in the same concentrations for common asthma inhalers and they are FDA approved. Propylene Glycol has almost no toxic effects on humans even in massive doses ingested, inhaled, or injected (Mckay, 2009). The FDA came back at this statement by saying that PG allergies are not uncommon and that the liquid in electronic cigarettes could affect people with that specific allergy. Recent tests show that PG allergies are very mild and only affect those whose use the electronic cigarette, because the vapor exhaled is 99% water vapor. Even if a person with a PG allergy were to use the e-cigarette, the only symptom they would experience is a mild irritation to the throat temporarily (Rogers, 2011). Even with all the facts pointing out that electronic cigarettes are virtually harmless, bans are still in place and health companies continue to look for new reasons to make false claims.

March 2009, the FDA added electronic cigarettes to a United States import ban list. Because of this particular ban, no electronic cigarette products could be imported into the country and in turn halted the industry. The FDA notified the company Smoking Everywhere that their product shipments were being refused entry to the country because their e-cigarette “appears to be a combination drug-device that requires registration and listing with the FDA”. After a failed petition, Smoking Everywhere sued the FDA on the lines that they exceeded their authority to regulate electronic cigarettes because they contain nicotine which isn’t classified as a drug. During this law suit the previous case FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. Congress clearly stated that the FDA does not have authority over regulating nicotine or delivery systems of it. On top of that, the FDA did not issue any notice of the import ban prior to the shipment halts. The company suit lasted for seven weeks. The court ruled that the FDA lift the import ban and had to reimburse companies for lost wages, products, and shipment charges (Karst, 2009).

June of 2009 President Obama passed The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This gave the FDA full power in the regulation process in the tobacco industry. They don’t have the power completely ban tobacco products but they can regulate the manufacturing process, marketing, and the sale of tobacco and smokeless tobacco (American Cancer Society, 2009). The FDA completely banned any fruit flavored cigarettes and small packs that might appeal to children or young adults. Soon after the FDA was content with its new changes, testing began on electronic cigarettes. Two months after testing, the FDA held a press conference urging people not to use these devices by stating that the e-cigarette could be marketed towards young adults, they do not have suitable health warning labels, they contain harmful carcinogens, and toxic chemicals including diethylene glycol which is commonly found in antifreeze. The FDA did not disclose that the carcinogens found were substantially lower than other FDA approved cessation products such as nicotine patches, and the amount of diethylene glycol found was not enough to be toxic or pose any health concerns. The worst part is that these substances were not found in the inhaled vapor produced from the device that users would be exposed to. The Washington Times called the FDA conference “distorted, incomplete and misleading, and meant to scare Americans to stick with regular cigarettes” (The Washington Times, 2009).

Even with all the misleading information floating around, electronic cigarettes continue to help people quit smoking with amazing results. Electronic cigarettes nearly double abstinence rates compared to traditional cessation products such as nicotine gum and patches. Nicotine does play a big role in smoking addiction, but e-cigarettes also satisfy the behavioral side of the addiction by effectively simulating smoking as well as curbing the nicotine craving. Nearly 70% of smokers during this study either reduced or completely quit smoking after using the electronic cigarette. The study proves that it is a very promising aid to quit smoking and also a great low risk alternative to tobacco. What’s even more surprising is that the study also concluded that electronic cigarettes are just as effective at helping smokers with no desire to quit, completely switch to e-cigarettes instead of their favorite brand of cigarettes. 54% of non-motivated smokers either completely quit cigarettes or cut their usage by more than half. All the facts and statistics lead to the conclusion that electronic cigarettes are the most effective cessation aid available. The lead author of this study Michael Siegal stated “Banning this product would invariably result in many ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking, and that removing this product from the market would substantially harm the public's health”(Siegal, 2011).

One of the key aspects to an electronic cigarette that makes it so effective is that users of the device can tailor the nicotine strength to their personal preference. For example a heavy smoker that goes through one to three packs would probably need either 18 or 24 milligram strength nicotine cartridge. While on the other hand, a light smoker could curb their cravings with a 6 to 12 milligram strength cartridge. The various strength cartridges ensure that e-cigarette users get exactly what they need to quit smoothly and effectively. A great strategy most use when quitting with electronic cigarettes, is the user will gradually work their way off cigarettes by slowly lowering the nicotine strength in the cartridge they use eventually reaching 0 milligram strength. It’s a pain-free way to quit without going cold turkey and feeling the nicotine withdrawal symptoms (Kuma, 2012).

As time goes on, electronic cigarettes are being proven to be safe over and over again. A 2012 study focusing on e-cigarettes effects on the heart came back with great results. During this study, 20 daily smokers were compared to 22 people who smoked electronic cigarettes for a total of 7 minutes. In that time, the smokers showed a significant change in heart rate and blood pressures spiked. While the electronic cigarette smokers showed little change, but a change was expected because nicotine is a stimulant. Based on these results, electronic cigarettes pose no risk to heart disease or adverse effects. This study also concluded that an electronic cigarette would have to be smoked for close to 12 months to equal the levels of carcinogens found in a single cigarette (Khan, 2012).

Just because electronic cigarettes are relatively safe, doesn’t mean there aren’t side effects from using it. The most common side effect is dry mouth. The easiest way to fix this is to increase fluid intake to counteract the dry feeling. Any other irritating feeling is probably an allergic reaction to a flavoring or the pg, but most of these cases are rare and very mild when they do occur. An effect was found to be caused by electronic cigarettes in a study. Lung function was constricted in both non-smokers with healthy lungs and smokers alike. Airway resistance rose to 206 percent from 182 percent in healthy patients, while smokers tested at 220 percent from 176 percent. These levels are still lower than a cigarette but it still raises concerns for the medical community. Additional studies will be done in the future to test if any long-term effects show up (Kitamura, 2012).

Electronic cigarettes have proven to be much safer than health organizations make them out to be. The device isn’t completely risk free, but the design is still being improved and the benefits outweigh the risks by far. All the facts point out that there is no reason for all the outright bans and restrictions. By dampening the marketing and restriction of sales of electronic cigarettes, it’s hurting the health of citizens who just can’t stop smoking with traditional methods. The electronic cigarette may be the best hope for a healthy tobacco reduced world.

References

American Cancer Society, n.a. (2009, June 30). The family smoking prevention and tobacco control act. ACS CAN. Retrieved December 8, 2012 from http://www.acscan.org/content/tobaccoregulation/

FDA, n.a. (2006, October 31). Propylene Glycol. FDA Database. Retrieved December 7, 2012 from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnDetailNavigation.cfm?rpt=scogsList ing&id=262

Karst, K. (2009, March 13). FDA electronic cigarette company suit. FDA Law Blog. Retrieved December 7, 2012 from http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2009/05/fda-explains- the-import-alert-process-in-electronic-cigarette-company-suit-.html

Khan, M. (2012, August 25). E-cigarettes pose no risk of heart disease, study finds. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-25/e-cigarettes-pose-no-risk-of- heart-disease-study-finds

Kitamura, M. (2012, September 03). Electronic Cigarettes have a temporary effect on lung function. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved December 12, 2012 from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-02/e-cigarettes-not-tied-to-risk-of-heart-disease-in-study

Kuma, T. (2012, April 22). Nicotine Levels in Electronic Cigarettes. NCBI. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22529223

Laugesen, M. (2008, October 30). New Zealand E-Cigarette Safety Report. HealthNZ. Retrieved December 7, 2012 from

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

Mckay, T. (2009, March 01). The Truth and Fiction About Propylene Glycol. Naturallycurly. Retrieved December 7, 2012 from

http://www.naturallycurly.com/curlreading/curl-products/curlchemist-the-truth- and-fiction-about-propylene-glycol

Nebehay, S. (2008, September 19). WHO Warns Against Use Of Electronic Cigarettes. Reuters. Retrieved December 7, 2012 from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/19/us-tobacco-electronic-idUSLJ42938720080919

Rogers, A. (2011, September 10). Alergic reaction to e-liquid. Virgin Vapor. Retrieved December 7, 2012 from http://www.virginvapor.com/blogs/news/4283012- allergic-reactions-to-e-liquid

Siegal, M. (2011, February 08). Electronic cigarettes hold promise as an aid to quiting. Boston University. Retrieved December 8, 2012 from http://sph.bu.edu/insider/Recent-News/electronic-cigarettes-hold-promise-as-aid- to-quitting.html