(828) 698-5795 

CASAA Public Service Announcement #5

image
Although 69% of smokers say they want to quit, the fact remains that only 52% of them actually try and only 1% to 2% of smokers actually succeed at quitting for more than a year. That means that the 45 million Americans who continue to smoke every year need an alternative that has far less health risks than smoking. The alternatives have been quit or die - until now.

Electronic cigarettes were invented to serve as a safe alternative to traditional cigarettes - for those who cannot or will not quit smoking. They are meant to be a replacement for tobacco cigarettes, not a replacement for nicotine gums and patches. For these smokers, gums and patches are either not an option or simply don't work for them. The effectiveness of e-cigarettes is measured by how many people quit smoking conventional cigarettes, not how many people quit using nicotine.

Continue reading
  2286 Hits
  0 Comments

CASAA Public Service Announcement #4

image
In 1990, the CDC reported that the smoking rate was 25.5% (around 46 million) adult smokers, so when the smoking rate dropped to 19.3% in 2010 there were only...45 million smokers.  How can that be? Well, the population went up, so even though the number of smokers remained virtually unchanged, the percentage of smokers went down - making it appear as though there was a significant drop over that 20 year period.Twenty years of tobacco control policies and there was only a 2.2% drop in the number of smokers! This is especially disappointing when you consider that the Healthy People 2010 objective of a 12% smoking rate would have meant 28 million smokers in 2010 - a goal missed by a whopping 17 million.

Tobacco control organizations prefer point to the smoking rates as evidence that their "abstinence only" policies - which aim only to get people to quit or stop people from starting - are working. So, they use those rate drops to support calls for more smoking bans, more product bans and more "sin" taxes. They also use this smoke-and-mirror "progress" to justify opposition to tobacco harm reduction policies and products, arguing that those are "unproven" to help smokers quit or reduce health risks, so we should continue to use their "evidence-based" policies that work.

Continue reading
  2126 Hits
  0 Comments

CASAA Public Service Announcement #3

image

"Harm reduction" is the act of making a risky behavior safer. There are risks we take every day - including driving. In fact, getting in a car is one of the riskiest activities we do. According to the National Safety Council, there are about 10 million car accidents a year - from parking lot bumps to multi-car pileups. More than 2 million people are injured in accidents every year. Yet only about 3 in every 1,000 (about 30,000) of those accidents results in a fatality. That is because of harm reduction policies. Seat belts, air bags, headlights, speed limits and traffic signs all reduce the high risks of driving and save lives.

Continue reading
  2007 Hits
  0 Comments

CASAA Public Service Announcement #2

image

Just about everything we do or consume has some risk involved. Even something as innocuous as fresh produce, such as spinach, can have hidden dangers. Every day we take simple actions that reduce our risks - from washing our vegetables, to crossing the street at crosswalks, to using condoms. Those actions are called "harm reduction," because while they don't make us 100% safe, they significantly reduce the risk of getting sick. Of course, never smoking is the most effective way to reduce the risk of lung cancer and heart disease, but even that is no guarantee.

Continue reading
  2593 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz Asserts that Pulmonary Effects of Smoking May Be No Worse than those of Vaping

In a comment submitted to the FDA, Dr. Stan Glantz has asserted that in terms of pulmonary effects, the use of electronic cigarettes may not be any less hazardous than smoking conventional cigarettes.Of course, this is the same thing as stating that cigarette smoking may be no worse than vaping in terms of its effects on pulmonary function.Dr. Glantz writes: "Evidence that e-cigarette aerosol has the same effects on an important measure of lung function as cigarette smoke undermines the assumption that e-cigarettes are uniformly less risky than conventional cigarettes."This assertion is based on a new study which found that electronic cigarette use, like smoking, results in reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide. As Dr. Glantz writes:"The paper, "Short-term effects of electronic and tobacco cigarettes on exhaled nitric oxide," by Sara Marini, et al, just published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (Volume 278, Issue 1, 1 July 2014, Pages 9–15), reports important data showing that nicotine e-cigarettes, non-nicotine e-cigarettes, and conventional cigarettes all have similar effects of depression of exhaled nitric oxide."Based on this single study, Dr. Glantz concludes: "the FDA must be extremely careful about assuming that e-cigarettes uniformly pose less risk than conventional cigarettes."Stated another way, Dr. Glantz is cautioning the FDA against assuming that e-cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes in terms of their effects on lung function.The Rest of the StoryIn my opinion, Dr. Glantz's conclusion from this study is unscientific, illogical, and extremely damaging and destructive to the FDA's consideration of this issue as well as to the public's appreciation of the severe hazards of cigarette smoking.Dr. Glantz is simply wrong. There is abundant evidence which demonstrates that while vaping does cause some degree of respiratory irritation (and probably triggers a bit of inflammation), it is far safer than smoking and has far less of an effect on lung function.In fact, in a study by Flouris et al., the investigators found that real cigarettes, but not the fake ones, had a significant detrimental effect on pulmonary function, measured by spirometry. This study documents that while active smoking has immediate, clinically meaningful effects in reducing lung function, electronic cigarettes do not. The study found that: "Neither a brief session of active e-cigarette smoking (indicative: 3% reduction in FEV1/FVC) nor a 1 h passive e-cigarette smoking (indicative: 2.3% reduction in FEV1/FVC) significantly affected the lung function (p > 0.001). In contrast, active (indicative: 7.2% reduction in FEV1/FVC; p < 0.001) but not passive (indicative: 3.4% reduction in FEV1/FVC; p = 0.005) tobacco cigarette smoking undermined lung function."The main study finding was as follows: "The assessment of lung function demonstrated that neither a brief session of active e-cigarette smoking nor a 1 hour passive e-cigarette smoking session significantly interfered with normal lung function. On the other hand, acute active and passive tobacco cigarette smoking undermined lung function, as repeatedly shown in previous studies." The study concluded that: "e-cigarettes generate smaller changes in lung function but similar nicotinergic impact to tobacco cigarettes."In order to draw the conclusion that Dr. Glantz drew in his comment, one would have to completely ignore this study. Obviously, Dr. Glantz has done exactly that. He has based his comment on one narrow study and ignored the rest of the literature.But it doesn't end there.The Marini study demonstrates that electronic cigarettes do lead to a reduction in exhaled nitric oxide, which suggests that they have a mild respiratory irritant effect and induce some inflammation in the airways. This is a finding which has been reported previously in a number of studies. It is not surprising because propylene glycol is known to be a mild respiratory irritant.But what is the clinical meaning of this effect? In order to find that out, one needs to conduct studies with longer-term end points.Well, Polosa et al. have conducted exactly such a study. They examined the changes in asthma symptoms among smokers who continue to smoke versus those who switch to electronic cigarettes. These investigators reported that in contrast to real cigarettes, the fake ones result in actual harm reversal. Lung function, asthma control, and asthma symptoms were significantly improved among patients who switched from regular cigarettes to electronic cigarettes. These improvements were even observed among patients who became dual users of both real and fake cigarettes. It is clear from the overall evidence that electronic cigarettes are not as risky as tobacco cigarettes in terms of acute effects on lung function. On this issue, Dr. Glantz's comment is simply wrong.The very idea that one would extrapolate from a study finding that vaping, like smoking, reduces exhaled nitric oxide levels to the conclusion that smoking may be no more hazardous than vaping in terms of its acute pulmonary effects defies scientific logic. It also shows a misunderstanding, or at least a misinterpretation of the meaning of exhaled nitric oxide findings.The finding of reduced exhaled nitric oxide is an indication that an exposure is causing some sort of inflammatory effect on cells lining the respiratory tract. It doesn't mean anything more or less than that. You can't take two exposures - each of which causes respiratory tract inflammation - and make the statement that the effects of both exposures are equal. Risk posed by an exposure depends on many other factors, including the degree of inflammation induced, the reversibility of the effect, the nature of the exposure, the chronicity of the exposure, etc.To understand how ridiculous Dr. Glantz's extrapolation is, consider some of the other exposures that also cause reductions in exhaled nitric oxide:1. Taking an examWhen students take their final exam in my course, they are all experiencing acute effects on their respiratory tracts. In fact, if you were to measured their exhaled nitric oxide levels, you would find that there is a significant reduction, just as is observed with smoking.In fact, this is precisely what Trueba et al. demonstrated in a study of changes in exhaled nitric oxide levels in 41 healthy college students.  Would one therefore conclude that taking an exam is just as risky, in terms of respiratory effects, as smoking a cigarette? Apparently, Dr. Glantz would draw such a conclusion. But it is easy to see why this is an inappropriate conclusion. And we would never disseminate messages to the public that smoking is no more hazardous than taking an exam.Can you imagine if the tobacco companies used the same logic as Dr. Glantz? They would, according to his scientific reasoning, be perfectly honest in communicating to the public statements like this:"Smoking is not uniformly more hazardous than simply taking an exam.""In terms of acute effects on respiratory function, active smoking is exactly equivalent to the effects of taking a math test.""Smoking is no more hazardous than taking an exam in terms of its acute respiratory effects."To be completely honest, Trueba et al. actually found that not only did taking an exam affect nitric oxide levels, but it also produced decreases in lung function measured by spirometry. This is something that has not been observed for electronic cigarettes.  2. Feeling sadTrueba et al. also found that higher depressive mood was associated with greater reductions in exhaled nitric oxide. Using Dr. Glantz's reasoning, the cigarette companies would be perfectly honest in putting out headlines stating:"Smoking no worse on the lungs than feeling a little sad.""By improving symptoms of depression, smoking may actually enhance respiratory health."You can see the quality of the scientific reasoning we are dealing with.Hopefully, the FDA will not be swayed by this nonsense.It is worth noting that the conclusions which Dr. Glantz is disseminating are destructive because they undermine decades of public education about the severe hazards of smoking. If the public thinks that smoking is only as risky as vaping, then it is likely that many smokers will decide to continue smoking rather than quitting using electronic cigarettes. And many ex-smokers who have quit with electronic cigarettes may return to smoking, thinking that they might as well since they are not getting any definite health benefit from having made the switch.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1235 Hits
  0 Comments

Nicotine and cardiovascular disease

There are frequent warnings of adverse cardiovascular effects of nicotine, claiming nicotine may cause atherosclerosis leading to an enhanced risk of severe diseases, such as myocardial infarction or stroke. The harm caused by tobacco smoke is well established, but the contribution of nicotine to cardiovascular disease is less clear. In this post, I will try […]

Continue reading
  1362 Hits
  0 Comments

Nicotine and cardiovascular disease

There are frequent warnings of adverse cardiovascular effects of nicotine, claiming nicotine may cause atherosclerosis leading to an enhanced risk of severe diseases, such as myocardial infarction or stroke. The harm caused by tobacco smoke is well established, but the contribution of nicotine to cardiovascular disease is less clear. In this post, I will try […]

Continue reading
  629 Hits
  0 Comments

Third Call to Action for FDA Proposed Regulations - Demand Congressional Hearings Investigating FDA and CDC's Actions

On Thursday, May 8th, CASAA released the Overview of its Action Plan Regarding Proposed FDA Regulations.  

Continue reading
  1337 Hits
  0 Comments

Why the most important ecig news of the week is Swedish Match’s MRTP application


by Carl V Phillips Swedish Match broke the ice for the FDA’s “Modified Risk Tobacco Products” process this week, boldly applying for the removal of misleading warning labels on their smokeless tobacco products in the USA.  There is no point in … Continue reading →Original author: Carl V Phillips
  1351 Hits
  0 Comments

Related Suppliers

NEW YORK -- Convenience store retailers may have been a little hesitant to dip their toes in the electronic cigarette pool a few years ago, but they are showing less reluctance with new vapor products.Wells Fargo Securities LLC's latest Tobacco Talk survey revealed that retailers are excited about vapors/tanks/mods (VTMs) -- the growing subsegment of vapor products. In addition, more than 92 percent of respondents believe VTMs are taking share from e-cigarettes.Tobacco Talk surveyed tobacco retailer and wholesaler contacts representing 30,000-plus convenience stores in the United States."We continue to be encouraged by the burgeoning presence of VTMs in c-stores. We believe VTMs will drive momentum in the entire vapor category for retailers, which should help generate greater margins and gross profit dollars," said Bonnie Herzog, managing director of beverage, tobacco and convenience store research at Wells Fargo Securities.The survey also found that nearly all respondents (95 percent) either currently carry VTMs or expect to carry them in the next six months."Given retailers' excitement around VTMs, these products are expected to comprise 45 percent of the vapor category in c-stores in six months, up from 26 percent today," Herzog explained. "This is consistent with our independent vapor manufacturer survey, which indicated that VTMs are growing twice as fast as the overall category."According to Herzog, survey respondents also reported that VTMs offer attractive margins for retailers, approximately 30 percent, which is more than double the average cigarette margins. However, retailers are concerned about margin compression if, or when, the Big Three tobacco companies -- The Altria Group Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc. -- control the vapor category.As for the Big Three's efforts in the electronic cigarette segment, Tobacco Talk found that blu and NJOY are expected lose share to VUSE and MarkTen as they roll out nationwide over the next few months. MarkTen is Altria's e-cigarette product; VUSE is RAI's digital vapor product; and blu is Lorillard's e-cigarette."Though we acknowledge VUSE and MarkTen could result in some share disruption for blu, we believe technological advancements on blu should not be underestimated," Herzog said. "For instance, blu's new cherry rechargeable e-cigarette should help blu bridge the performance gap between e-cigs and VTMs, ultimately driving share growth."Original author: James
  1743 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz takes a vacuous swing at Bates; Pruen eviscerates Glantz


by Carl V Phillips I was not planning to comment on the recent mass-signed letter that was sent to the WHO, telling them how they should think about e-cigarettes.  But then Tom Pruen wrote this gem of an analysis responding … Continue reading →Original author: Carl V Phillips
  1778 Hits
  0 Comments

Swedish Match Files to Change Smokeless Tobacco Warnings

Swedish Match has filed a Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) application with the FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). The landmark event was announced in an AP story (here). The company wants to change three health warnings on ten of its snus products manufactured by the company in Gothenburg, Sweden and sold in the U.S.: 1. Remove the current warning, “This product can cause mouth cancer.”2. Remove the current warning, “This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss.”3. Replace the current warning, “This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes,” with this text: “No tobacco product is safe, but this product presents substantially lower risks to health than cigarettes.”4. Retain the current warning, “Smokeless tobacco is addictive.”Numerous studies document that the three targeted warnings have essentially no scientific basis (discussed here). I previously noted the bogus nature of the mouth cancer warning, which was mandated in 1986, five years after Dr. Deborah Winn mischaracterized the magnitude and scope of smokeless tobacco’s mouth cancer risk (discussed previously in this blog here and here). There is no foundation for an oral cancer warning for today’s American and Swedish smokeless products.The gum disease/tooth loss warning is equally inappropriate. Even in 1986, there was virtually no scientific evidence that smokeless tobacco was an independent risk factor for any dental problem. The same is true today. The not-a-safe-alternative warning is particularly egregious. The purpose of this 1986 warning was to deceive smokers into believing that smokeless tobacco was just as dangerous as smoking. As I wrote in my book, “For Smokers Only” (here), this warning is simply ludicrous. Swedish Match’s replacement warning is identical to a change requested by RJ Reynolds in a citizen petition filed with the FDA three years ago (discussed here). The FDA ignored that petition, but it is obligated to consider the Swedish Match MRTP application. After an administrative review for completeness, the agency must refer the application to the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) and ask TPSAC to report its recommendations on the application to FDA within 60 days. The FDA will also make the application public and request comments. “FDA intends to act upon your MRTP application no later than 360 days after receipt…”The misinformation in the current warnings has been shown to discourage smokers from switching (here). The welcome filing by Swedish Match could dramatically alter the landscape for tobacco harm reduction.Original author: Neville
  1807 Hits
  0 Comments

UCSF Scientists Tell FDA They are Not Sure Smoking is Any More Dangerous than Vaping

In a comment submitted to the FDA regarding its proposed e-cigarette deeming regulations, a trio of UCSF scientists argue that it is premature to declare that there is a continuum of risk among nicotine-containing products, including tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes.They write: "The idea of a “spectrum of risk” or “continuum of risk” among tobacco and nicotine delivery products is logical. However at this time it is a hypothesis lacking sufficient empirical evidence to use as a basis for regulatory decisions. ... The FDA should not predicate regulatory actions on the assumption that any tobacco or nicotine delivery product is substantially safer than another until the improved safety profile has been demonstrated by a substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific research."They conclude: "Taken together, these studies demonstrate unequivocally that products and devices that deliver respirable particles and nicotine are inherently dangerous. The “Spectrum of Risk” is an unproven hypothesis with potentially deadly effects on the public health. FDA should not deem any tobacco or nicotine product to be safer than another, until it is proven to be safer through a substantial and consistent body of peer-reviewed scientific research."The Rest of the StoryThese scientists are arguing that it is premature to declare that there is any difference in risk between a tobacco cigarette, which burns tobacco, and an electronic cigarette, which contains no tobacco and involves no combustion, but merely heats nicotine in a solution of propylene glycol and glycerin.In other words, they are telling the FDA that at the present time, they cannot conclude that cigarette smoking is any more harmful than vaping.What a damaging and irresponsible public statement to make!They are essentially telling smokers that they are perhaps just as well off continuing to smoke cigarettes as switching to electronic cigarettes because we are not sure that the e-cigarettes are any safer.We have an epidemiological term for what we would call it were a physician to make precisely such a statement to a patient: ...... malpractice.There is absolutely no question that vaping is safer than smoking and that smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes are improving their health. To suggest otherwise is scientifically irresponsible, in my opinion. It undermines years of public education about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Even Big Tobacco would not claim that their products are as safe as non-combusted, non-tobacco-containing, electronic cigarettes.However, these UCSF scientists are making precisely such a claim.These researchers conclude, in the same comment, that electronic cigarettes cause heart disease, heart attacks, and pulmonary disease. There is inadequate evidence for any of those assertions.The ultimate irony is that while these researchers do not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that smoking is any more harmful than vaping, they do believe there is enough evidence to conclude - already - that vaping causes heart disease, heart attacks, and pulmonary disease. Even the most hardened e-cigarette opponents, including Glantz himself, have not gone that far.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1348 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigarettes and Youth: Addressing and preventing underage e-cig access

Let’s come right out and say it – if you’re younger than legal smoking age, we don’t want your business. And most, if not all, of our competitors would say the exact same thing.

Continue reading
  3271 Hits
  0 Comments

Japan Tobacco to buy UK e-cigarette brand E-Lites

LONDON (Reuters) - Japan Tobacco Inc has agreed to buy the maker of E-Lites, a leading brand of e-cigarettes in Britain, giving it entry into the fast-growing market for tobacco alternatives. Japan Tobacco said on Wednesday that it had agreed to buy all outstanding shares of E-Lites' parent company Zandera, founded in 2009. Financial terms were not disclosed, though the company said it would fund the purchase with existing cash and debt. It said the deal is expected to have a minor effect on its performance and cash flow in fiscal 2014. As rates of smoking decline, big tobacco companies such as Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco Group have been jostling for position in the growing market for electronic cigarettes, which use nicotine-laced liquid. Some analysts believe e-cigarettes will eventually outsell traditional cigarettes in some markets. Japan Tobacco, the maker of Winston, Camel and Mild Seven, already sells outside the United States a smoking device called Ploom that heats, but does not burn, pods of tobacco. E-Lites, one of the leading brands in the UK, is the company's first tobacco alternative. E-Lites' parent had revenue of about 16 million pounds in the fiscal year ended March 2014. (Reporting by Martinne Geller in London; Editing by Jason Neely and Pravin Char)Consumer DiscretionaryInvestment & Company InformationJapan Tobacco IncOriginal author: Warner
  1647 Hits
  0 Comments

E-Cigs and Second-Hand Vaping

Is it safe to bogart that e-cig or even be in the same room with an e-cig bogarter?OK, in this post we’re going to clue you in on some of the potential issues with electronic cigarettes or e-cigs, as they’re diminutively known. But before we do, we need to get one thing straight: Smoking cigarettes kills. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking “is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths, or one of every five deaths, each year.”Add to that the more than 16 million Americans who suffer from a smoking-related disease, and it’s fairly clear anything that lowers the rate of cigarette smoking is going to improve our overall health.Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show the number of U.S. deaths attributable to cigarette smoking has climbed to 480,000. (Source: cdc.gov, 2000-2004)Americans Are Smoking LessThe numbers are somewhat encouraging. While more than 40 percent of Americans smoked in 1965, only about 18 percent did in 2012. However, given that our population grew over that time, the net drop in American smokers — 1965′s 50 million smokers versus 2012′s 42 million — is only 8 million.That drop in the rate of smoking probably didn’t just happen. The government and a host of nonprofits have waged a long and hard campaign against smoking: ever-increasing taxes, a ban on broadcast advertising, and anti-smoking ad campaigns that promote a healthy lifestyle and warn of the health risks of smoking. (Californiaappears to be leading the pack in this fight.) And ever since 1966, Americans have not been able to purchase a pack of cigarettes free of a stern warning about the hazards of smoking.For decades the government and many nonprofits have mounted anti-smoking campaigns. Some of this work seems to have paid off. (FDA)Then there’s the wide assortment of products to help smokers kick the habit – everything frompatches and gum to prescription drugs, lozenges and lollipops. And more recently e-cigarettes.The Newest and Coolest: ‘Vaping’Although they were patented back in the 1960s, electronic cigarettes didn’t really come onto the scene until the past decade, appearing first in China in 2004and spreading to other areas including Europe in 2006 and then the United States the following year. (See infographic on the history of e-cigarettes.)These cigarette lookalikes basically consist of a cartridge, a battery and an LED light. When turned on, the e-cig heats up the liquid that is housed in the cartridge; this produces an aerosol mist or vapor, which the “smoker” inhales or “vapes,” an alternate term that denotes the lack of combustion. The ingredients of the liquid vary, but generally include nicotine (though some are nicotine free), chemicals to vaporize the nicotine (like propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin), additives and flavoring.Since they are tobacco free, e-cigs are currently unregulated in the United States but that may change. Already cities like Boston, Chicago, New York, and most recently Los Angeles have restricted their use. And Utah, New Jersey and North Dakota havebanned their use wherever smoking is prohibited. Other states and localities includingMinnesota and Oregon are considering restrictions as well.It is my impression that there’s some confusion in how e-cigs are being marketed. In some cases they are being touted as a nicotine replacement product that smokers can use to eventually quit smoking altogether or (more likely to me) a healthier way to get your nicotine.E-cigarettes are taking off as an alternative to conventional cigarettes. But when it comes to health, are they safe or do they blow?And I guess if you “got to” smoke (whatever that means) I suppose e-cigs are probably a lot less unhealthy than good, old-fashioned cigarettes.Given the long and sorry list of harmful and toxic chemicals in cigarettes, vaping is almost certainly less dangerous to your health.The Potential Hazards of VapingBut don’t be fooled into thinking that e-cigs are without risks or that you should now be able to vape to your heart’s content. Or that they’re plain healthy.First of all, nicotine is a drug and apowerfully habit-forming one at that, and a 2013 study suggests that even inhaling the drug via either conventional cigarettes or e-cigs may contribute to heart disease.Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be “9-450 times lower than in cigarette smoke,” as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde and metalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.* Silicate particles, which are a cause of lung disease, have also been found in e-cigarette vapors.The ‘Second-Hand Smoke’ QuestionA number of e-cig enthusiasts I have spoken to believe that the ban on smoking cigarettes in public places should not apply to e-cigs. And some are acting on that belief. I’ve even seen a woman confidently doing her e-cig thing on the subway in New York. Another in a restaurant.And why not? Electronic cigarettes don’t burn and so there is no smoke. And no smoke means no second-hand smoke. And no second-hand smoke means no health worries for the non-e-cig public who happen to be in the vicinity. Sounds reasonable and what a boon for nicotine addicts. Relegated, lo all these years, to standing outside in the freezing cold or blistering heat to get their fix and unable to inhale while in flight, now e-cig users can reenter conventional society.But is there really no second-hand “smoke”?Don’t be so sure. A small study by Wolfgang Schober of the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority and colleagues published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health in December found that vaping worsened indoor air quality, specifically by increasing the concentration of nicotine, particulate matter, PAHs and aluminum — compounds that have been linked to lung and cardiovascular disease and cancer among other health effects.The upshot? Probably won’t be long before the nicotine-inhaling e-cig users of the world find themselves legislated back out into the cold to hang with their conventional nicotine-smoking addicts.__________________End Note* Comparable levels of some metals have been reported for FDA-approved nicotine inhalers as well. Depending upon your view of FDA regulations, you could take this as an “all clear” on metals and e-cigs. One difference between inhalers and e-cigs that may impact exposure is that the vapors from FDA inhalers are absorbed in the mouthrather than the lungs like e-cigs.Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok E-Cigs and Second-Hand VapingOriginal author: Riley
  1771 Hits
  0 Comments

Glantz and Colleagues Support Government Suppression of the Truth about Electronic Cigarettes

In a submission to the FDA regarding the proposed deeming regulations, Stan Glantz and colleagues have called on a government ban on truthful speech by electronic cigarette companies: namely, stating that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes. The authors of this comment want the FDA to expressly prohibit electronic cigarette companies from informing consumers that vaping is safer than smoking.In fact, one of the complaints in the comment is that "E-cigarette companies are marketing e-cigarettes as healthier alternatives to cigarette smoking."Glantz believes that informing consumers that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking will increase the appeal of e-cigarettes to youth, and on that basis, he wants the truth to be suppressed. The comment recommends that FDA ban "indirect health claims," which presumably means claims that e-cigarettes are safer than real cigarettes.The Rest of the StoryIt is perfectly reasonable for the government to intervene to prevent companies from making false or misleading claims to the public. Even severe infringement of free speech by corporations may be justified in the case of preventing the deception of consumers. However, there is little justification for prohibiting companies from telling consumers the truth, and there is no justification for suppressing the truth when those facts are the most pertinent information that the consumer needs to know in order to make an informed decision about using the product.There is little question that electronic cigarettes are much safer than tobacco cigarettes (even Glantz himself admits that). And further, there is little question that the most important piece of information consumers need in deciding whether to continue to smoke real cigarettes or switch to the fake ones is that the fake ones don't contain or burn tobacco and are therefore much safer than the real tobacco cigarettes.Why would we want to suppress the provision of this information to the public? And what justification is there for a government-mandated suppression of the truth?While I agree with Stan on virtually every aspect of the regulation of cigarette marketing, we part ways when he advocates the suppression of the truth. Original author: Michael Siegel
  1462 Hits
  0 Comments

This Fast-Growing ‘Cigarette Killer’ Has 30% Upside

Although over-the-counter (OTC) stocks are growing in popularity, most investors avoid them because of their reputation for extreme risk.Among the most common dangers of OTC stocks are poor transparency (since the underlying companies don't have to file with the SEC), the inability to meet minimum financial and other requirements for listing on a major exchange, and increased susceptibility to "pump and dump" scams. What's more, OTC stocks often display absolutely sickening price volatility.So once an OTC stock gets to where it can uplist to a major exchange like the Nasdaq or NYSE, many investors may get the impression the stock is now "safe." And this could be the case with one small stock that's right in the thick of what may be the Next Big Thing -- electronic cigarettes.After trading on the "pink sheets" for years, this tiny e-cigarette maker with a $92 million market capitalization has been trading on the Nasdaq since May 30. Its stock price is up 25% since the uplisting was announced on May 28. So to many investors, the company could be looking more and more like a legitimate and reasonably safe entry point into the emerging e-cigarette industry, especially since it's really the only pure play around.View gallery.And though there are reasons why the company -- Vapor Corp. (Nasdaq: VPCO) -- is worthy of investors' consideration, there are also reasons to exercise extreme caution, despite the greater credibility that comes with a Nasdaq listing.[More from StreetAuthority.com: Icahn Is Loading Up On A Stock With 77% Upside]There's certainly no arguing with Vapor's success so far. With an increasingly familiar stable of brands such as Krave, Alternacig and EZ Smoker, as well as a large retail presence consisting of nearly 60,000 online and retail outlets in the U.S. and Canada, the company has tripled sales since 2009, to $24 million.That may only be 1.6% of the $1.5 billion e-cigarette market -- but even if Vapor merely maintains this share of the market, it could still mean awesome growth. Assuming industrywide revenues hit $24 billion in 2023 as Wells Fargo analysts project, a 1.6% slice would translate to annual sales north of $380 million for Vapor about a decade from now.That's nearly 16 times current revenues. And at that level of performance, I doubt the company would have much trouble generating strong per-share profits.However, it's not there yet. Indeed, Vapor hasn't even achieved consistent profitability, though it's a good sign that earnings have been positive in three of the past six years.View gallery.[More from StreetAuthority.com: The Best Thousand-Dollar Stock You've Never Heard Of]In the meantime, the company faces a lot of uncertainty because its operations are small next to those of big tobacco companies beginning to muscle in on the e-cigarette action. For instance, Lorillard (NYSE: LO), the third-largest tobacco maker in the U.S., has been especially aggressive about pursuing growth in the e-cigarette space and already generates annual sales of more than $200 million with its Blu and Skycig brands.The second-largest U.S. tobacco maker, Reynolds American (NYSE: RAI) is also establishing a presence in e-cigarettes, with its new Vuse brand. Plus, the firm is in talks to acquire Lorillard, a deal that would give it three e-cigarette brands with far larger sales than Vapor's.Thus, there appear to be several possible outcomes for Vapor. One is to keep operating independently with a relatively small but potentially very profitable piece of the e-cigarette pie. This could eventually lead to a buyout by one of the big tobacco companies such as Altria (NYSE: MO), the maker of Marlboro, since that company has been slowest to adopt e-cigarettes and may need to play catch up. Or Vapor could be overwhelmed by its much bigger competitors and go out under.As with any speculative investment, it's tough to say what's going to happen with Vapor. Although the new Nasdaq listing indicates important strides have been made, this is still a young company in an emerging industry with an uncertain future. So those interested in Vapor as a potentially fast-growing pure play or buyout candidate should consider only establishing a small position in the stock. [More from StreetAuthority.com: Whole Foods Is Down 30% -- Time To Buy?]They should certainly expect to continue seeing excessive volatility -- shares commonly fluctuate by double digits on any given day and have ranged in price from $3 to $10 during the past 12 months -- and be aware they could lose their whole investment in the worst-case scenario.Risks to Consider: Besides intense competition, Vapor faces the risk of much heavier regulation since the federal government is authorized to treat e-cigarettes the same as regular tobacco products. Compliance costs could place more financial strain on Vapor than it can bear.Action to Take --> Despite its promise, I think Vapor could be more than 30% undervalued. Specifically, investors have historically been willing to pay 13 times book value for the stock. Applying that multiple to the current per-share book value of $0.66 suggests shares are worth $8.58 apiece. Yet they're only trading at around $5.80.Valuing the stock is admittedly a bit tricky, though, since Vapor is in its infancy and there's currently covered by only one analyst, who projects earnings per share (EPS) of $0.34 in 2015, suggesting a reasonable forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 17. Investors willing to take a risk have a good entry point right now.Related Articles This Fast-Growing 'Cigarette Killer' Has 30% UpsideInsiders Are Wrong About This Industry LeaderGet 100% Upside From This Side Play On The U.S. Energy BoomConsumer DiscretionaryInvestment & Company InformationOriginal author: Daren
  1704 Hits
  0 Comments

It's Official: Big Pharma is Lobbying Against Electronic Cigarettes

I have long argued that tobacco control advocates who have financial ties to Big Pharma must disclose these ties if they opine about national strategies for electronic cigarette regulation because these ties represent a conflict of interest. My argument was based on the premise that electronic cigarettes represent a major form of market competition with pharmaceutical cessation aids and that drug companies therefore have a financial interest in seeing electronic cigarettes squashed.Today, I reveal that this speculation about pharmaceutical financial interests in the demise of e-cigarettes was not just speculation, but it has now been confirmed.According to an article in the London Times, GlaxoSmithKline - a major player in the pharmaceutical smoking cessation industry - has lobbied vigorously on behalf of stringent electronic cigarette regulation in the European Union. Specifically, a leaked memo apparently showed that Glaxo was telling policymakers that electronic cigarettes could be a gateway to smoking and that these products should be regulated as medicines, not as a type of nicotine or tobacco product.According to the article: "One of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies has warned lawmakers that electronic cigarettes could act as a “gateway to tobacco”. The leaked correspondence from GlaxoSmithKline, whose nicotine patches, gums and lozenges are being undermined by the burgeoning e-cigarette market, reveals the opposition from the pharmaceutical industry to impending regulation of e-cigarettes across the European Union. The pharmaceutical industry wants medicines licences to be mandatory for e-cigarettes, as they are for nicotine products. Instead, the EU is set to introduce a system in which e-cigarette companies can opt in for medicines regulation or be regulated in a similar way to traditional cigarettes."Christopher Snowdon reported the details of the story here back in February. He wrote:"This is a blatant attempt at rent-seeking by an obvious vested interest. We know that the pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying hard to hamper the growth of e-cigarettes so it comes as no surprise to find Glaxo using the tired old gateway argument. The truth is that e-cigarettes will only "seriously disadvantage" the NRT market if they work better as quitting aids. In my experience—and the experience of countless other people—e-cigarettes are much better substitutes for smoking. If they were really a "gateway" to smoking, e-cigarettes would be good for companies like Glaxo as they would create more smokers (NRT companies need there to be smokers just as much as cigarette companies do)."Snowdon also noted that the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. He wrote:"As usual, both these companies are main sponsors of the conference—apparently there is no problem having corporations that are vociferously opposed to the most promising development in smoking cessation paying for a conference about smoking cessation." The Rest of the StoryFinancial interests in Big Pharma must now be recognized as conflicts of interest for any organization or individual who is offering opinions about national strategy, policy, or regulations regarding electronic cigarettes. Therefore, the authors of all scientific articles regarding electronic cigarettes must disclose any financial interests with pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, organizations must also disclose any financial ties to Big Pharma when they offer recommendations regarding electronic cigarette policy.Unfortunately, there have been numerous violations of this disclosure standard, as several commentators on electronic cigarette policy have failed to disclose their Big Pharma ties in published articles. I have highlighted many of these stories on my blog, but for one demonstrative example, see my column on failed disclosures by an individual and an organization in the New York Times debate on electronic cigarettes.Another inexcusable conflict of interest is the fact that Mitch Zeller, the director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products and therefore the chief author of the proposed electronic cigarette regulations, came to the FDA directly from a consulting job with GlaxoSmithKline and therefore has a severe conflict of interest regarding the electronic cigarette issue.Moreover, several former members (and one current member) of the FDA's Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee have (or have had) financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma, and thus are not in a position to offer opinions about national tobacco product regulation in the context of this expert advisory panel.And finally, it appears that most of the national tobacco control conferences continue to be funded by pharmaceutical companies. There is no way that these conferences can be objective about smoking policy, especially regarding electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation, when they are funded by Big Pharma.Original author: Michael Siegel
  1611 Hits
  0 Comments

Tell Me What’s Your Flavor

Did you know that there's more to smoking with blu? People may congratulate you that you have quit smoking and found a healthier way. People may think that smoking is bad for the health, but the moment they would realize on the facts electronic cigarettes could bring, they would be surprised. As a matter of fact, users of this tiny device have changed their lives. Think about smoking in a closed and air conditioned room. Who would think you would be able to take a puff with freedom? Yes, this is what an e-cig can provide. Other than that, they have converted a healthier body. No matter what flavor you would choose, each bottle allows you to have the freedom you were supposed to have when you were still smoking on the conventional cigarette. Talking about flavor, there is another fact that you should know about electronic cigarettes. Most people believe that colors can tell personalities. And just as the flavors you use for your e-cig, each tells who you are. It may sound amusing, let's find out what your flavor is.The ClassicThe increasing demand of the different flavors of their electronic cigarettes didn't stop people who would still prefer to use the blu classic tobacco e-liquid. This is for the simple men and women who would not want any flavor to their cigarette. They want plain. There are just people who want nothing on their cupcake. Just as the people who prefer this flavor. All they want is classic taste and classic in every sense.MentholYou can feel the cool and morning breeze the moment you puff on the blu menthol e-liquid. There's only one word to describe the people who love this flavor – cool! As refreshing as the spearmint in this flavor, this is what you are. Even if it has a slight taste of vanilla in it, you can still recognize a person who does not take any effort at all grabbing everyone's attention. In short, they naturally stand out.NRG with TaurineIf menthol lovers are cool and sophisticated, this flavor is the opposite. Men and women who enjoy this flavor are believed to be sharp and electrifying. Since this flavor allows the user to be alive and full of energy. For those who wanted to have an adrenaline rush, this should satisfy your vaping desires.CherryFor people who wish to have excitement and adventure, this is the flavor them. The moment you enter the room, people will be captivated and be intrigued. This unique flavor enables people to tell your personality. Each drop of this cherry flavor allows you to discover more.It is interesting to know that your electronic cigarette could reflect your personality. You can spot your flavor that conforms who you are. On the other hand, you can always try another flavor that would suit your taste buds. It's amazing when people decide to quit smoking and decide to have a healthy life, not to mention discover more about themselves and their friends through these electronic cigarette flavors.Original author: Wilbur
  1763 Hits
  0 Comments